My right compound eye saw Monroe. My left compound eye saw Einstein!

i am not surprised we pretty much agree.

you should always be careful with any substance and to be informed is the first step.
was i careful at 15 with double barrel purple mescaline?---->nope.i was 15.

but i think the argument is getting caught up in distinctions,which is common.
when i speak of psychedelics,i am talking about:LSD,shrooms,mescaline.
and while exstacy is considered a psychedelic,and it IS a psychedelic (and awesome btw),i also consider that drug to be more a "club" drug,a designer drug,and yes...it can be fatal because often it is NOT mdma/mda you're are taking but a cocktail of bullshit with a few experimental chemistry molecules thrown in...so your cautionary tale is not exactly unfounded..but i have never seen shagen even suggest mdma/mda but almost exclusively:DMT.

now,i am fairly cautious in suggesting DMT to the uninitiated due to the fact of its potency (even in small amounts).there is no small build up with DMT,it goes from first gear to 15th in 2.2 seconds,and for a newcomer that can easily overwhelm and frighten.

for psychedelics to produce a positive and healthy response there first has to be interest in trying psychedelics out.the worst thing you could EVER do is "hey man,i just filled your beer with shroom tea" (you would notice though,that shit tastes like concentrated ass).

the person should also be in the right frame of mind and be in a place and with people they feel comfortable with and trust (very important the first time).knowing the dosage is important but not as important as you would think,as long as you take things slow and with patient care..things will sort out nicely.

as for death and permanent brain damage.i am not familiar with any cases except for the movie they showed us in the 7th grade with helen hunt thinking she could fly,because she took acid.i know psychedelics can affect a personality permanently (usually for the better) but nothing life threatening.i know too high a dosage on a novice mind can cause a "bad" trip and leave an unpleasant memory of the experience.there have been cases of latent mental illnesses manifesting due to the psychedelics,but it didnt CAUSE the mental illness.

from my own personal experience and what i have read,psychedelics are pretty safe.they are not a toy.they are an extremely powerful psychoactive compound that should always be treated with respect and to ignore that can have consequences.

but i dont think death and permanent brain damage are on that list.

unless you decided to do something stupid while tripping,but that is evolution,not psychedelics.

i could always come to california and we could drink shroom kool-aid.hang out on the moutain-side and watch the sunset and by the time we are watching the sunrise we will have become blood brothers and watched the universe expand in glorious birth pangs and then collapse upon itself in its death throes.talked to stars and danced with super novas.find ourselves in a meadow,thinking we walked half the state only to realize we are a 1/4 mile from your back porch.

i promise good times my friend.good times indeed.

A few of my friends and colleagues have been using psychedelics in their research and practice, both in the white market, as well as the black market, for about a decade now. I'm excited for the changes in the use and exploration of these compounds that we'll see by 2025 or even sooner.

That angry dad could have easily had a gun and shot the guy in his violent enraged state.

Don't piss people off on the roads and then compound it when they confront you. Is driving like a jerk worth dying for? I guess for some idiots it is. EIA.

I think you're underestimating the draw on some of those bows as well. They look like kids toys, but classic short bows (rather than modern compound pulley bows), particularly horn ones, can range from 45 to over 100 pounds draw. You don't need a deep draw to propel an arrow at killing speeds, particularly at targets under 20 feet. Even in chainmail.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion, I just disagree.
I find it easy to believe that closely held military techniques could have been lost once the tool (bow) was no longer useful in the military. That is certainly the case for sword fighting/making.
As he mentioned, the method used today is better for stationary target shooting, the kind of shooting done today. Old school methods are so lost that most people believe in the back mounted quiver, which he showed clearly doesn't work in practice. Aiming with one eye also doesn't work on moving targets at different ranges, you need both eyes to determine distance properly.
As for armor, long bows penetrate plate armor, with mail beneath, and leather beneath that, at serious distance. It seems like a non-broad head arrow should penetrate chain mail and leather padding relatively easily, it would only need to split 1 or 2 rings to get through as I see it, which isn't that much. Also, I note at least one of his bows is not totally old school, but seems to be an odd compound style, probably giving him more power than it seems.
Shooting the arrow out of the air, I won't call fake, but probably took dozens of tries to get, even though the arrows were lobbed at him. Splitting one was likely unintentional, but still cool!

Um...did you listen to the narration? He did not ignore everything anyone knows about archery, he actually researched how those who used it for fighting did it, and it turned out to be completely different from how compound bow using, stationary, no time limit target shooters shoot. This is not a 'new' style, it's super old school.
It's possible it's faked, yes, but everything he said made sense to me, and it sure LOOKED like he was shooting for real, just differently from how we've seen it done before.

In my opinion, the people who mercilessly shoot dogs are simply Wild-West enthusiasts who go out on a daily basis desperate for the opportunity to use their deadly weapon. It's an us-vs-them attitude, and it makes their own job harder, which makes them act tougher, compounding the problem. The spirit of the frontier lives on in the minds of these bullies, and even if they are in the minority it means that there are armed and dangerous psychopaths walking around with the protection of the state. And if you even consider defending yourself, you're being killed or sent away for the long haul.

Found the video more enjoyable once i read this:

Both green olives (Olea europaea) and Pimentos (Capsicum annuum) contain isoprenoids that are structurally similar to the methylcyclopentane monoterpene nepetalactone, which is responsible for binding to receptors in you cat's vomeronasal organ and consequently the mind-altering effect your cat experiences.
These compounds are not unusual, although thie configuration varies widely between plant species.
These compounds resemble pheromones, and as such some of them function as a natural mock-pheromone pest repellents for the plant, which is likely how such high levels of these constituents within a plants' essential oils evolved.
The vomeronasal organ is what your cat (and most other animals with the exception of humans, although there is a small indented area and partial nerve channel where it would be, left over from our evolution) uses to sense pheromones, and is where the nepetalactone in catnip stimulates pheromone receptors resulting in space-kitty.

TL;DR - it is likely that either the green olives or pimentos have a chemical in their essential oil that is similar enough to the active chemical in catnip to have a similar effect on the same receptors in the part of kitty's nose that are responsible for catnip getting her high.
(from Yahoo Answers via reddit)

Your video, Curiosity finds organic compounds on Mars, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Well, wouldn't someone EXPECT that compounds on Mars would be pesticide-free, non-genetically modified, and free-range?

I never really got the love for this movie. Yes, Bill Murray is great in it, but Bill Murray's pretty much awesome in everything, and a great premise is pretty much ruined by the central plot and then compounded by the inclusion of Andie McDowell.

It feels like there's a leaner, funnier movie in there, but it got derailed into boring romcom territory.

If I have to be an expert to dismiss the evidence, why don't you also have to be an expert to accept the evidence?

Because experts have already examined the evidence and found it sufficient. That evidence has been used in the development of medicines, and has used to make predictions later shown to be true.

You, on the other hand, want to overthrow the accepted worldview. So you better have some pretty extraordinary evidence as well as the understanding to back it up. I see neither from you.

Why do you have macro and micro evolution in quotations? Do you realize they are scientific terms?

You should read your own links.

Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. As Ernst W. Mayr observes, "transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species...it is misleading to make a distinction between the causes of micro- and macroevolution".

And there is tonnes of evidence of macroevolution. You and your ilk just misuse the term and ask to see a monkey to give birth to a human.

But that's just your lack of understanding.

You could say that, but why should it be taken seriously? The flying spaghetti monster, or the flying teapot, have no explanatory power.

Of course it does. They're magic, they exist outside of time and space and can do whatever they feel like. It's the exact same "explanatory power" that god has, i.e. none whatsoever.

There are good reasons, philosophically and otherwise, to believe an all powerful being created this Universe. The idea of whether the Universe was designed is not a ridiculous question, and I think it is pretty odd that anyone would rule that explanation out apriori.

Yes, and there were good reasons to think thunder was gods fighting and rain happened when you danced. And now we know those are nonsense.

Besides, you are conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. We have a pretty good idea about the origins of the universe, but it's kinda by definition a difficult question to ask. But we know that evolution is true to a ridiculously high certainty.

It may be that in the future that someone disproves evolution. But if they do, it will be through science, not creationist bollocks.

Again, have you ever studied the subject? If you have, what evidences have you looked at?

I really don't have to study it. You have to provide some evidence to back up your assertion, which I will then trivially disprove with 5 seconds on google.

I also don't study astrology, homeopathy, tarot cards, voodoo or crystal therapy because they are all long since proven to be complete bollocks.

You're not just wrong, you're fractally wrong. You're like a kitten who can't work out why he can't eat the fish on the tv. You would require significant education to even understand why you're so wrong.

Then slow down with theories of our impending demise, the IPCC doesn't support it. You want to talk about not denying the science, then you don't get to preach gloom and doom. Don't claim a large percentage of farmland is going to be lost to sea level rise by 2100. Don't claim coastlines are going to be pushed back 10 miles by a worst case 1 foot rise of sea level by 2100.

We are talking about advancements solving problems like a maximum sea level rise of a foot in the next 100 years, with best guesses being lower than that. I think it's modest to suggest our children's children will have figured out how to raise the dikes around places like New Orleans by a foot in the next 100 years.
The concord and moon trips are no longer happening because they are expensive. We can do them if we needed to, and more easily than the first time around. Finding out people aren't willing to pay the premium to shave an hour off their flight doesn't mean the technology no longer exists. Just because America no longer needs to prove they can lift massive quantities of nuclear warheads into orbit doesn't mean we couldn't still go to the moon again if it was needed. There's just no reason to do it, the tech exists still none the less.
Yes, there are social problems that confound the use of new technology. You fail to notice that is also the problem with feeding everybody. Food production isn't the problem, but rather the men with guns that control distribution. Stalin's mass starvation of millions was a social problem, not climate change or technology. Mao's was the same. North Koreas the same. All over Africa is the same. We have more than enough food, and plenty of charities work hard to send food over to places like Africa. Once the food gets there though the men with guns take most of it and people still starve. The reason Africa has so many crop failures is the violent displacement of the farmers. Exactly the same problem that saw millions starve in Russia, China and North Korea.
You are right that a changing climate could compound Africa's ag industry a bit, but it's a small hit compared to the violent displacement problem. Also, don't neglect to consider to impact of meaningful CO2 emission restrictions around the globe. A large scale global economic downturn probably means a lot more war, bloodshed, and starvation. If you do not reduce emissions enough to trigger that downturn and instead just 'marginally', you get stuck with both because Africa is still going to see virtually the same climate changes through the next hundred years.

And if you are worried about losing the glaciers in the Himalayas by 2100 there is very good reason to believe that's gonna be alright:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S41/39/84Q12/index.xml?section=topstories

TONS of things cure cancer. All day, every day. Doctors have no clue what cancer is. All they can do is cut, burn, or poison and cross their fingers.

I didn't say Cannabis was THE cure. It is A cure used by thousands with amazing efficacy. Everyone is different.

Here's 60+ studies for your perusal if you insist on the superiority of western scientific research:

"Cannabis, and the cannabinoid compounds found within it, has been shown through a large cannabisplantamount of scientific, peer-reviewed research to be effective at treating a wide variety of cancers, ranging from brain cancer to colon cancer. Below is a list of over 60 studies that demonstrate the vast anti-cancer properties of cannabis.
Studies showing cannabis may combat brain cancer:
Cannabidiol (CBD) inhibits the proliferation and invasion in U87-MG and T98G glioma cells. Study published in the Public Library of Science journal in October 2013.
Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) can kill cancer cells by causing them to self-digest. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation in September 2013.
CBD is a novel therapeutic target against glioblastoma. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2013.
Local delivery of cannabinoid-filled microparticles inhibits tumor growth in a model of glioblastoma multiforme. Study published in Public Library of Science in January 2013.
Cannabinoid action inhibits the growth of malignant human glioma U87MG cells. Study published in Oncology Reports in July 2012.
Cannabidiol enhances the inhibitory effects of THC on human glioblastoma cell proliferation and survival. Study published in the Molecular Cancer Therapeutics journal in January 2010.
Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death in human glioma cells. Study published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation in May 2009.
Cannabinoids inhibit glioma cell invasion by down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase-2 expression. Study published in Cancer Research in March 2008.
Cannabinoids and gliomas. Study published in Molecular Neurobiology in June 2007.
Cannabinoids inhibit gliomagenesis. Study published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry in March 2007.
A pilot clinical study of THC in patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme. The results were published in the British Journal of Cancer in June 2006.
Cannabidiol inhibits human glioma cell migration through an independent cannabinoid receptor mechanism. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in April 2005.
Cannabinoids inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway (VEGF) in gliomas. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2004.
Antitumor effects of cannabidiol, a nonpsychoactive cannabinoid, on human glioma cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacology in November 2003.
Inhibition of glioma growth in vivo by selective activation of the CB2 cannabinoid receptor. Study published in the Journal of Cancer Research in August 2001.
Studies showing cannabis may combat colorectal cancer:
Cannabigerol (CBG) can inhibit colon cancer cells. Study published in the Oxford journal Carcinogenesis in October 2014.
Inhibition of colon carcinogenesis by a standardised Cannabis Sativa extract with high content of CBD. Study published in Phytomedecine in December 2013.
Chemopreventive effect of the non-psychotropic phytocannabinoid CBD on colon cancer. Study published in the Journal of Molecular Medecine in August 2012.
Cannabinoids against intestinal inflammation and cancer. Study published in Pharmacology Research in August 2009.
Action of cannabinoid receptors on colorectal tumor growth. Study published by the Cancer Center of the University of Texas in July 2008.
Studies showing cannabis may combat blood cancer:
The effects of cannabidiol and its synergism with bortezomib in multiple myeloma cell lines. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in December 2013.
Enhancing the activity of CBD and other cannabinoids against leukaemia. Study published in Anticancer Research in October 2013.
Cannabis extract treatment for terminal acute lymphoblastic leukemia of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph1). Study published in Case Reports in Oncology in September 2013.
Expression of type 1 and type 2 cannabinoid receptors in lymphoma. Study published in the International Journal of Cancer in June 2008.
Cannabinoid action in mantle cell lymphoma. Study published in Molecular Pharmacology in November 2006.
THC-induced apoptosis in Jurkat leukemia. Study published in Molecular Cancer Research in August 2006.
Targeting CB2 cannabinoid receptors as a novel therapy to treat malignant lymphoblastic disease. Study published in Blood American Society of Hemmatology in July 2002.
Studies showing cannabis can combat lung cancer:
Cannabinoids increase lung cancer cell lysis by lymphokine-activated killer cells via upregulation of Icam-1. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in July 2014.
Cannabinoids inhibit angiogenic capacities of endothelial cells via release of tissue inhibitor of matrix metalloproteinases-1 from lung cancer cells. Study published in Biochemical Pharmacology in June 2014.
COX-2 and PPAR-γ confer CBD-induced apoptosis of human lung cancer cells. Study published in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics in January 2013.
CBD inhibits lung cancer cell invasion and metastasis via intercellular adhesion molecule-1. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in April 2012.
Cannabinoid receptors, CB1 and CB2, as novel targets for inhibition of non–small cell lung cancer growth and metastasis. Study published in Cancer Prevention Research in January 2011.
THC inhibits epithelial growth factor-induced (EGF) lung cancer cell migration in vitro as well as its growth and metastasis in vivo. Study published in the journal Oncogene in July 2007.
Studies showing cannabis may combat stomach cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor agonist as an alternative drug in 5-Fluorouracil-resistant gastric cancer cells. Study published in Anticancer Research in June 2013.
Antiproliferative mechanism of a cannabinoid agonist by cell cycle arrest in human gastric cancer cells. Study published in the Journal of Cellular Biochemistry in March 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat prostrate cancer:
Cannabinoids can treat prostate cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Non-THC cannabinoids inhibit prostate carcinoma growth in vitro and in vivo: pro-apoptotic effects and underlying mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in December 2012.
The role of cannabinoids in prostate cancer: Basic science perspective and potential clinical applications. Study published in the Indian Journal of Urology in January 2012.
Induction of apoptosis by cannabinoids in prostate and colon cancer cells is phosphatase dependent. Study published in Anticancer Research in November 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat liver cancer:
Involvement of PPARγ in the antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma (CHC). Study published in Cell Death and Disease in May 2013.
Evaluation of anti-invasion effect of cannabinoids on human hepatocarcinoma cells. Study published on the site Informa Healthcare in February 2013.
Antitumoral action of cannabinoids on hepatocellular carcinoma. Study published in Cell Death and Differentiation in April 2011.
Studies showing cannabis may combat pancreatic cancer:
Cannabinoids inhibit energetic metabolism and induce autophagy in pancreatic cancer cells. Study published in Cell Death and Disease in June 2013.
Cannabinoids Induce apoptosis of pancreatic tumor cells. Study published in Cancer Research in July 2006.
Studies showing cannabis may combat skin cancer:
Cannabinoid receptor activiation can combat skin cancer. Study published by the National Institute of Health in October 2013.
Cannabinoids were found to reduce skin cancer by 90% in just 2 weeks. Study published in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology in July 2013.
Cannabinoid receptors as novel targets for the treatment of melanoma. Study published in the Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in December 2006.
Inhibition of skin tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo by activation of cannabinoid receptors. Study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, in January 2003.
Studies showing cannabis may combat other types of cancer:
Bladder: Marijuana reduces the risk of bladder cancer. Study published in the Medscape site in May 2013.
Kaposi sarcoma: Cannabidiol inhibits growth and induces programmed cell death in Kaposi sarcoma–associated herpesvirus-infected endothelium. Study published in the journal Genes & Cancer in July 2012.
Nose, mouth, throat, ear: Cannabinoids like THC inhibit cellular respiration of human oral cancer cells. Study by the Department of Pediatrics at the State University of New York, published in June 2010.
Bile duct: The dual effects of THC on cholangiocarcinoma cells: anti-invasion activity at low concentration and apoptosis induction at high concentration. Study published in Cancer Investigation in May 2010.
Ovaries: Cannabinoid receptors as a target for therapy of ovarian cancer. Study published on the American Association for Cancer Research website in 2006.
Preparation and characterisation of biodegradable microparticles filled with THC and their antitumor efficacy on cancer cell lines. Study published in the Journal of Drug Targeting in September 2013.
CBD Cannabidiol as a potential anticancer drug. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in February 2013.
Cannabinoids as anticancer modulators. Study published in the Progress in Lipid Research journal in January 2013.
CBD inhibits angiogenesis by multiple mechanisms. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in November 2012.
Towards the use of cannabinoids as antitumour agents. Study published in Nature in June 2012.
Cannabinoid-associated cell death mechanisms in tumor models. Study published in the International Journal of Oncology in May 2012.
Cannabinoids, endocannabinoids and cancer. Study published in Cancer Metastasis Reviews in December 2011.
The endocannabinoid system and cancer: therapeutic implication. Study published in the British Journal of Pharmacology in July 2011.
This list was compiled in part by Alchimiaweb.com.
– TheJointBlog"