He lost me at "I am a chemist".

*promote the use of chemists and engineers to come up with some spider-silk repelling gloves...YESTERDAY!!

F REA K S H o W

Ok can we trust these factoids?

Letter mountain: Who commisioned it?
Ballooned form what weight after his mom died? Was he skinny then suddenly fat or on his way already? He's eating himself into an early grave who cares, fuck you.

Who cares when he was born or why he is a head of state? A state of what? Children with nuclear weapons? Who cares, fuck you.
Daddy paid his way into Switzerschool, free case-study for Jungian opportunists. All the better to fuck him with, SCORE 1 for the demise of Pok Choi. Maye he can get in the douchebag protection program.

Who hasn't been found with a bondage-porn magazine during an exam?: Non-information.

Scared of barbers and calling his new self-crop the, "Ambition?" Uh, paranioia, need more cocaine and advisers, maybe that chemist with the syringe of happy-splooge...

SO he used to be like a regular kid and then he got groomed for dad's seat because the other son was kinna weakly for wanting pussy...OOOooooKay. Son with no ambitions for fageena gets to play with bombs....Riiiiight.

Gotta give it up to his new propaganda campain
of bad-hollywood-nods with 30-yr-old CG technology, cheesy bastards are as cheesy bastards do, ad infinitude. He can't help it, he's retarded.

Plastic surgery to look like the first-Reich cunt?? Brilliant. Keep up the Shatner until you destory an entire culture, fuck you Kim, yer a cunt.

(Anyone well-versed in my rants on the NK clan will remember, I fear and grieve and always have for the people of Korea, north and south. We make fun of this cunt, but let other cunts tell us we need to let him live, and that's fucked.

Start with him, and work your way up to the rich white folks who run the world into the ground, and then you have a party.

Al was called aluminum by the English chemist who discovered it, Humphry Davy, in his 1812 book which publicized the metal. It was some anonymous jackass writing a review of Davy's book who decided to change it to aluminium (see 4th paragraph) because he didn't like the sound of Davy's choice.

Nothing to do with Americans... the Brits fucked this one up all on their own and have been living the lie ever since.

First of all, I like your standpoint, nothing wrong with that. We simply don't know, maybe the big bang was an imploding black hole in another plane of existence, creating our own 4 dimensional reality. Maybe it was an omnipotent being looking like a giant spider with Panda bears instead of arms, maybe both.
Although Occam razor would suggest the first alternative (which on a grand scale sounds equally ridiculous to me), we still don't know.

And secondly ask yourself this (I don't mean you in special bobknight), "Is it even possible to consider biological evolution in isolation from everything else?". I don't think thats possible, first we need something like really huge stars to create heavy atoms (i mean everything with more protons than helium, that's not what a chemist would call heavy). We need smaller stars that don't burn up that fast and deliver energy, we need a planet in the right distance to this star. Ohh and the planet itself doesn't have the properties to sustain life from the beginning, earth also had to "evolve" to the kind of planet that was able to sustain life and therefore start the biological evolution. There are many more of these requirements and they also needed to "evolve" from this huge pile of energy called the big bang.

... But they actually forgot to mention Post-its. 3M was trying to create a glue, but it didn't work. It WAS a complete accident that they created post-its because that glue was supposed to stick - and it doesn't - which gave them the idea to market it as Post-Its.

"In 1968, Dr. Spencer Silver, a chemist at 3M in the United States, was attempting to develop a super-strong adhesive, but instead he accidentally created a "low-tack", reusable, pressure-sensitive adhesive." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-it_note

Good luck to you! Hope that does good things for you =).

>> ^criticalthud:

>> ^draak13:
Apologies for the fiery comment earlier; I do prefer an actual discussion as you're marching on with. No beef against physicists, either...I'm an electical/biomedical engineer turned analytical chemist/physicist =).
Sorry to hear about your scoliosis. Apart from a shoulder issue, I don't really have too much that separates me from ideal at this point. Nonetheless, as humans, the good many of us fall within the portion of the distribution that this stuff matters. This is clearly indicated by her results, which are supported by the foundations of countless other experiments many learn about even in introductory psychology courses.
Your comment about us choosing to act differently from our body language is extremely valid on all levels of neurophysiology. For example, a person can lift their arm, or a person can imagine lifting their arm while keeping it still. In both cases, the primary motor cortex lights up the same way, though in the case where the person keep their arm still, the signal is inhibited further down the pathway. That's an example rooted in the old brain, and there are certainly examples within the higher level cognitive portions of the brain. Smiling makes us feel happy, and we often feel happier simply by smiling, but we can choose to be happy while not smiling, or choose to be sad while smiling.
In this case, what was described was a method in which we can bring out dominant behaviors in ourselves through our body language feedback. For those who are do not have a naturally dominant personality, this is an excellent way to step into the shoes of a slightly more dominant self. Continuing with your comment, her 'make it until you become it' conclusion is very much a person choosing to act in a more dominant way, without the need for the postures to make it so. Once those neural pathways are better understood within ourselves, it's much easier to call upon them and make that conscious decision as necessary. Until then, many less dominant people have an easily accessible means to explore themselves with a slightly more dominant attitude.
>> ^criticalthud:
i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.

and sorry if i came off as a snot.
as to the vid, honestly i find a presentation of "ease" in a person to be the most attractive, rather than dominance.
as for the scoliosis, been working hard at it for 12 yrs and we're over some big practical hurdles. By understanding neurology this way (in terms of pressure and compression), we're quickly gaining on being able to dynamically change the spine.
to explain, in short:
i imagine you are familiar with thoracic outlet syndrome? - basically a compression of the brachial plexus at the clavicle and rib 1, which results in an interruption and weakening of the nervous signal, weakness in the hand, pain etc. To solve it, doctors cut a hole for it. From that, we can take an understanding that compression of neurology is a fairly bad thing.
But if you look at the main branches of neurology, what you'll note is that the nervous system at some point in the body always runs through a bone space (interosseous space). Between vertebrae, between ribs, etc. Over time and trauma these spaces compress, resulting in variances in compression all throughout the body, thus varying neurological feed all throughout the body. The neurological system is a fluid system. As you vary compression, you vary the pressure within the fluid system. These variances in pressure and fluid transfer start dictating our tendencies. How we move, how we look, who we are.
anyway, here's some of it
www.ncrtheory.org
so far, the practical end (manual therapy) is proving the theoretical. I'm just balancing neurological space. pretty unbelievable. today is a big day. wish me luck.

>> ^draak13:

Apologies for the fiery comment earlier; I do prefer an actual discussion as you're marching on with. No beef against physicists, either...I'm an electical/biomedical engineer turned analytical chemist/physicist =).
Sorry to hear about your scoliosis. Apart from a shoulder issue, I don't really have too much that separates me from ideal at this point. Nonetheless, as humans, the good many of us fall within the portion of the distribution that this stuff matters. This is clearly indicated by her results, which are supported by the foundations of countless other experiments many learn about even in introductory psychology courses.
Your comment about us choosing to act differently from our body language is extremely valid on all levels of neurophysiology. For example, a person can lift their arm, or a person can imagine lifting their arm while keeping it still. In both cases, the primary motor cortex lights up the same way, though in the case where the person keep their arm still, the signal is inhibited further down the pathway. That's an example rooted in the old brain, and there are certainly examples within the higher level cognitive portions of the brain. Smiling makes us feel happy, and we often feel happier simply by smiling, but we can choose to be happy while not smiling, or choose to be sad while smiling.
In this case, what was described was a method in which we can bring out dominant behaviors in ourselves through our body language feedback. For those who are do not have a naturally dominant personality, this is an excellent way to step into the shoes of a slightly more dominant self. Continuing with your comment, her 'make it until you become it' conclusion is very much a person choosing to act in a more dominant way, without the need for the postures to make it so. Once those neural pathways are better understood within ourselves, it's much easier to call upon them and make that conscious decision as necessary. Until then, many less dominant people have an easily accessible means to explore themselves with a slightly more dominant attitude.
>> ^criticalthud:
i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.


and sorry if i came off as a snot.
as to the vid, honestly i find a presentation of "ease" in a person to be the most attractive, rather than dominance.
as for the scoliosis, been working hard at it for 12 yrs and we're over some big practical hurdles. By understanding neurology this way (in terms of pressure and compression), we're quickly gaining on being able to dynamically change the spine.
to explain, in short:
i imagine you are familiar with thoracic outlet syndrome? - basically a compression of the brachial plexus at the clavicle and rib 1, which results in an interruption and weakening of the nervous signal, weakness in the hand, pain etc. To solve it, doctors cut a hole for it. From that, we can take an understanding that compression of neurology is a fairly bad thing.

But if you look at the main branches of neurology, what you'll note is that the nervous system at some point in the body always runs through a bone space (interosseous space). Between vertebrae, between ribs, etc. Over time and trauma these spaces compress, resulting in variances in compression all throughout the body, thus varying neurological feed all throughout the body. The neurological system is a fluid system. As you vary compression, you vary the pressure within the fluid system. These variances in pressure and fluid transfer start dictating our tendencies. How we move, how we look, who we are.
anyway, here's some of it
www.ncrtheory.org
so far, the practical end (manual therapy) is proving the theoretical. I'm just balancing neurological space. pretty unbelievable. today is a big day. wish me luck.

Apologies for the fiery comment earlier; I do prefer an actual discussion as you're marching on with. No beef against physicists, either...I'm an electical/biomedical engineer turned analytical chemist/physicist =).

Sorry to hear about your scoliosis. Apart from a shoulder issue, I don't really have too much that separates me from ideal at this point. Nonetheless, as humans, the good many of us fall within the portion of the distribution that this stuff matters. This is clearly indicated by her results, which are supported by the foundations of countless other experiments many learn about even in introductory psychology courses.

Your comment about us choosing to act differently from our body language is extremely valid on all levels of neurophysiology. For example, a person can lift their arm, or a person can imagine lifting their arm while keeping it still. In both cases, the primary motor cortex lights up the same way, though in the case where the person keep their arm still, the signal is inhibited further down the pathway. That's an example rooted in the old brain, and there are certainly examples within the higher level cognitive portions of the brain. Smiling makes us feel happy, and we often feel happier simply by smiling, but we can choose to be happy while not smiling, or choose to be sad while smiling.

In this case, what was described was a method in which we can bring out dominant behaviors in ourselves through our body language feedback. For those who are do not have a naturally dominant personality, this is an excellent way to step into the shoes of a slightly more dominant self. Continuing with your comment, her 'make it until you become it' conclusion is very much a person choosing to act in a more dominant way, without the need for the postures to make it so. Once those neural pathways are better understood within ourselves, it's much easier to call upon them and make that conscious decision as necessary. Until then, many less dominant people have an easily accessible means to explore themselves with a slightly more dominant attitude.

>> ^criticalthud:

i grew up with a pretty gnarly scoliosis. Body language that wasn't strained or uncomfortable was nearly impossible.
Most of us have distortion in our spines that effects who we are, how we move, and how we present. Perhaps you do not, but ignoring the physical realities of the species to pretend that how we are perceived is mostly a conscious choice, is understating the matter.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/06/03/1334230/how-chemistry-stymies-attempts-to-regulate-synthetic-drugs

There is an ever increasing crackdown on vendors of these stimulants, and an ever increasing response from the chemists by synthesizing more. One of the people who ran a website just for vendors got caught up in a sting operation, and he is one of many similar stories taking place.

http://internetchem.blogspot.com/2012/04/federal-crackdown-on-research-chemical.html

The legislation in response to this has been to basically ban "chemicals" ... and i wish i were kidding about the specificity in some of the laws... although in all cases, banning a specific one does nothing.

It's almost like you can't win a war on drugs... only a war on the people who use them... that's a fact sure to help cure the paranoia, but just in case, lets make sure people who are angry and under-medicated can get guns.


if we're the majority who is deciding our lives for us...the plot thickens*!







*just kidding its old white men and their nagging wives.

>> ^Quboid:

I don't mind most Americanisms, I see them as the evolution of language. However, in the case of proper nouns, it does bug me; if it's a British word, they are as objectively wrong as language can be.
Jag-u-ar. Ir-aq. Ir-an. Al-u-min-i-um. Car-i-bbe-an.
Edit: Oh yes, spelt is valid English. Only US English does away with it in favour of "spelled".


Except aluminium was called aluminum by the chemist who discovered it, Humphry Davy, in his 1812 book which publicized the metal. It was some anonymous jackass writing a review of Davy's book who decided to change it to aluminium because he didn't like the sound of Davy's choice.

Jaguar is a Portuguese word and I believe their pronunciation is closer to "jag-war" than "jag-you-are".

But generally, I agree with you. I still say catch myself saying "eye-rack" and "eye-ran" instead of "ee-rock" and "ee-ron". I go back and forth on the emphasis on Caribbean. It's hard to break old habits.

Sweeping generalizations don't play any better than slippery slopes.

I'm sure someone has told you that government involvement always leads to higher costs, but it's simply not true. Maybe you're new to this argument, but there are tons of examples.

You didn't answer any of my questions. Most importantly, do you or do you not acknowledge the connection between a successful economy and education?

About GE specifically, they wouldn't exist as they do if it weren't for an educated populace from which to draw skills. Without university-educated engineers, chemists, managers, accountants, lawyers and so on they couldn't run the business they do. Where did all these educated people come from? Did GE pay for their education? Nope. The people themselves did. They make GE fantastically wealthy with their labour, and in return, they get crushing debt for years and years while GE reaps nothing but profits.

About sales taxes, I'm no expert, but I believe sales taxes are consumer taxes only, so GE doesn't have to pay them to suppliers, or they get credited back. I could be wrong.>> ^bobknight33:

The government should not be in the education and student loan process at all.
The rate should be at fair market value.
Government involvement has helped caused such high tuition costs.
Government involvement always lead to higher cost, no matter what.
Healthcare cost are going up because government got involved.

I agree with her though that the problem is diagnostics. I'm just more hopeful about other treatment paradigms in the presence of greater specificity of diagnosis. I might be wrong, I just think that too much is made out of our biochemical breakdowns of the nervous system. It's like caring what doping was put in the transistors in your computer. Yes, you'll find that particular doping agent all over the damn thing, but if the computer is broken, you might want to talk to a programmer not a chemist. It's the software, the particular pattern of ones and zeros (or in the brain analog, the wiring and action potentials) that are usually faulty. Not widespread deficiencies in the functioning of doping compounds.

I'm not a chemist, but this is quite interesting.

Apparently, adding oil to the water reduces surface tension, preventing the water from boiling over.

The chemist in me thinks that it doesn't make a huge difference.