It is generally understood that acetaminophen/paracetemol binds and reduces oxidized, 'highly active' COX-2 enzymes... this chills out the COX-2 activity until it is oxidized again and cranks back up. So imagine in this animation acetaminophen kind-of causing that active COX binding site to close up a little for a while, and preventing it from working in that way.

Acetaminophen also doesn't appear to have a lot of anti-inflammatory action near the actual site of inflammation, but rather more globally throughout the body; folks hypothesize a lot about the reason for this, but I like the simple answer that acetaminophen itself can't reduce oxidized COX enzymes in an injured area surrounded by high levels of oxidative species.

(nerd fist-bump)

>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^spoco2:
But what about paracetamol? That's different, because you can take the allowed dosage of that and the allowed dosage of ibuprofen at the same time without interaction... but how does it work?

Paracetemol is the major painkiller here in Thailand, which annoys me because I believe that I am essentially immune to it. I took paracetemol (tylenol) often when I was in my pre and early teens for migraines. At some point, I found that it just wouldn't do anything for me anymore. Ibuprofen and Aspirin both work great, so I always use those when I have a choice -- but the default is always Paracetemol here.

^@rottenseed I think you need to be careful, for instance, where is the line between eating a sausage seductively and being flamboyant? Generally I'd say be tolerant, even of the ones you don't like. I'd try not to call anybody a fag unless it is something you do with your (queer) friends in the way that other words have been reclaimed. Finally, if something is egregious or inappropriate call people out on their bullshit and let them know they are making you uncomfortable. It isn't cool for anybody to invade your space or whatever.

I tend to agree that there is a certain demographic that is arguably the victim of some cultural attitudes within the queer community. I'm often told there can be this pressure to be (being completely reductionist) "more gay" within certain circles. I think what you often end up with is more theater than people being themselves. People being themselves is cool, but like you're saying, some people need to chill out with the broadcasting (the same goes for many cultural subgroups).

"Give Muslims democracy and they'll chill out because democracy is better than any religion."

Hmm. Not necessarily when one objectively considers the glaring inconsistencies in practice over principle with regard to our so-called, democratic government in the United States. If a good-ol-boy, corporate oligarchy to you is democracy, well??
A10anis' point is valid with regard to the comparisons made between the two "religions": Perhaps the Yahweh-followers of the Old Testament times might stone a woman, homosexual, etc. but society has come a long way since the dark-age examples you describe to draw comparisons to the two. The Muslim faith and her peoples in the middle east are a bit less advanced socially, spiritually. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "do unto others.." don't seem to factor into the Diaspora's majority, however: there are always, within any faith those who are bit further ahead of the curve.

Individual devotee's of all faiths serve as points of light or darkness which shape the attitudes of outsiders as a whole. Muslims seem to be a bit less up-to-speed with the rest of the world. For the sake of all, do we really want to allow oil-rich assholes decide the direction of the future for the planet? Besides, modern Persians' don't exactly have the best taste nor do they seem to spend their money wisely. I mean, c'mon?? A frikkin' amusement park in the middle of the desert??!

Knowledge through education. Tolerance through understanding.

>> ^messenger:

@A10anis
You suggest at the end of your first comment that Shure and Dore think Islam is moderate. But they don't say that. All your arguments against Islam are word for word equally applicable to Christianity as well.
As for your defence of Christianity, first, I don't know what the term is, but posing rhetorical questions, the answers to which don't conclude anything is a false argument. Like, I can make a false argument in the same way by asking, "When was the last time a Muslim burned a black man on a cross? When was the last time Muslims conducted witch hunts or a Spanish Inquisition?" It sounds like the answers must be conclusive, but they're meaningless. If you want to say something, just say it.
Second, using the craziest of the sickest crazies to exemplify Islam is like using the KKK and the hick communities they draw from to exemplify the western civilization. It's bullshit. Most Muslims just go about doing their thing and don't give a shit what other people think, and certainly don't advocate killing non-believers. And the ones who do, it's not because they're Muslim: it's because the U.S. installed or supported religious dictatorial leaders. What do you think are the three most batshit crazy Islamic countries? I bet the U.S. created or supported the creation of their non-democratic power structure. Am I right? Lack of democracy is the difference, not the text of the religion. Give Muslims democracy and they'll chill out because democracy is better than any religion.
You offered to clarify though. You said you agree with everything else Dooley said besides those two statements, right? So, can you clarify that you:
support "total war" against all Muslims and the reduction of the religion of Islam to "cult status"?
think the U.S. is OK to go ahead and do this?
consider Muslims to be the "enemy of the West"?
assert the Geneva Convention is no barrier to militarily targeting non-combatant Muslims abroad (which currently is all of them)? How about American Muslims? Can they be targeted militarily as well?
claim there is no such thing as moderate Islam?
believe there are 140 million Muslims who hate "everything you stand for"? Really? Everything?
believe the Crusades were justified? Even the ones waged against other Christians?
Backpedalling in 3, 2, 1...

I made my point in my first comment. I explained my point to you - as you needed it explaining- in my second. You are an idiot. I will not respond again.

@A10anis

You suggest at the end of your first comment that Shure and Dore think Islam is moderate. But they don't say that. All your arguments against Islam are word for word equally applicable to Christianity as well.

As for your defence of Christianity, first, I don't know what the term is, but posing rhetorical questions, the answers to which don't conclude anything is a false argument. Like, I can make a false argument in the same way by asking, "When was the last time a Muslim burned a black man on a cross? When was the last time Muslims conducted witch hunts or a Spanish Inquisition?" It sounds like the answers must be conclusive, but they're meaningless. If you want to say something, just say it.

Second, using the craziest of the sickest crazies to exemplify Islam is like using the KKK and the hick communities they draw from to exemplify the western civilization. It's bullshit. Most Muslims just go about doing their thing and don't give a shit what other people think, and certainly don't advocate killing non-believers. And the ones who do, it's not because they're Muslim: it's because the U.S. installed or supported religious dictatorial leaders. What do you think are the three most batshit crazy Islamic countries? I bet the U.S. created or supported the creation of their non-democratic power structure. Am I right? Lack of democracy is the difference, not the text of the religion. Give Muslims democracy and they'll chill out because democracy is better than any religion.

You offered to clarify though. You said you agree with everything else Dooley said besides those two statements, right? So, can you clarify that you:
* support "total war" against all Muslims and the reduction of the religion of Islam to "cult status"?
* think the U.S. is OK to go ahead and do this?
* consider Muslims to be the "enemy of the West"?
* assert the Geneva Convention is no barrier to militarily targeting non-combatant Muslims abroad (which currently is all of them)? How about American Muslims? Can they be targeted militarily as well?
* claim there is no such thing as moderate Islam?
* believe there are 140 million Muslims who hate "everything you stand for"? Really? Everything?
* believe the Crusades were justified? Even the ones waged against other Christians?

Backpedalling in 3, 2, 1...

>> ^Hybrid:

This is so fucking retarded, I'm outta here. All the best fellow sifters, it's been fun.


You can't leave when you are only 200 star points from 1337!

Seriously, hope you are kidding. It sounds almost as rash as the shit that started all this sock puppet insanity. Go watch this and chill out. You'll feel better. Easter eggs have a very calming effect on people.

You're welcome. I like the shamrocks around Dr. Nefarious... the cool thing is he's already wearing a green helmet
In reply to this comment by Barseps:
Thanking you sir
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*quality

Thanking you sir
In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*quality

This is a marketing video for just that. You can find the company's poorly-written website if you watch the first few seconds of the unchopped video. I was thinking about the military and peeping tom applications myself, but neither are mentioned there.>> ^Payback:

I'm thinking someone should start using these for Search/Rescue.

Heh, that's cool as well as dangerous. Love the dog chilling out.

C.K. himself talks about learning to throw out his act each year from George Carlin who, at the time, was his comedy hero. C.K., too, thought that it was incredible, but he soon realized that it's the only way to keep it fresh and stay alive creatively.

>> ^spoco2:

Man, I just laughed out loud from his bit then about the bus boy... that's a joke he's only just starting on for his next year of material, and it's already showing he has not lost it yet.
I was listening to Marc Maron interviewing Chris Rock the other day, and in that they mention Louis, and talk about his throwing out his act each year and were all like 'Woah man, just slow down, chill out, you're doing too much'.
And I think that's why he's at the top. Because he does not think it's too much, because he's made that deal with himself, he's fucking stuck to it, and it is seriously reaping rewards. It's the thing which stops him getting stale. The worst thing for a comedian, for me, is when I see them do the same bit over and over. It destroys that illusion that they're just making it up there on the spot, which is what all great comedians seem like they're doing. It's only when you see them do the act a few times that you realise that all those inflections, the little asides, the 'mistakes' etc., they're all part of a well honed act. If you don't see the act over and over then you can maintain the illusion for yourself.
That's why I'm still very much into Louis.
I bought and watched Live at the Beacon on Monday and it was hilarious. $5 well spent.

Man, I just laughed out loud from his bit then about the bus boy... that's a joke he's only just starting on for his next year of material, and it's already showing he has not lost it yet.

I was listening to Marc Maron interviewing Chris Rock the other day, and in that they mention Louis, and talk about his throwing out his act each year and were all like 'Woah man, just slow down, chill out, you're doing too much'.

And I think that's why he's at the top. Because he does not think it's too much, because he's made that deal with himself, he's fucking stuck to it, and it is seriously reaping rewards. It's the thing which stops him getting stale. The worst thing for a comedian, for me, is when I see them do the same bit over and over. It destroys that illusion that they're just making it up there on the spot, which is what all great comedians seem like they're doing. It's only when you see them do the act a few times that you realise that all those inflections, the little asides, the 'mistakes' etc., they're all part of a well honed act. If you don't see the act over and over then you can maintain the illusion for yourself.

That's why I'm still very much into Louis.

I bought and watched Live at the Beacon on Monday and it was hilarious. $5 well spent.

>> ^robbersdog49:

It's good, but best gymnast in the world? Really? You need to watch some more gymnastics.


Chill out mate! I base my comments on nothing, it's not even an opinion. He's just great and that's how I express it

NDT is on coke or what!? Chill out, guy. It's obvious at the start of the video something is bothering him.