>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@harpom & @BoneRemake
Cry me a river. The ideas you have about this are dumb.
Your brains apparently don't understand the concept of context and severity.
First, "the burning sensations of wasabi are not oil-based, they are short-lived compared to the effects of chili peppers, and are washed away with more food or liquid. The sensation is felt primarily in the nasal passage and can be quite painful depending on amount taken."
[i.e. - digestion isn't a problem. the kid won't have an upset tummy or burning curry butthole later]
Furthermore, "Wasabi is a Japanese horseradish which can range from dangerously spicy to mildly spicy."
Therefore. If you start with a small amount of weak wasabi and mix it with soy sauce or the like, what you get is.. SOMETHING NOT THAT HOT/SPICY.
[plus that baby is wearing american flags on his pajamas which means it probably wasn't even TRUE wasabi. i.e. some weak ass horseradish paste]
Second, this probably isn't the first time these parents have done this since the baby doesn't seem too surprised and he takes it well. They probably knew the outcome.
Third, they didn't force the kid to finish it like THIS terrible shitty mother.
So again, context [knowing your kid can handle it] and severity [not forcing a fistful of wasabi on the kid].


Sorry Dr. Kilpatrick, i did not realize i was quoting a pediatric. You must have a vast superior knowledge of infant/toddler physiology. How about you put wasabi in one eye and lemon in the other and let us know which one hurts more.

I suppose I should "fuck off," given that I wasn't his friend, child, or spouse, given that I wasn't "close to him." Except that I'm not going to fuck off.

Who are you to tell me not to mourn the loss of someone who's served as an inspiration—and dare I say a personal hero—to me and, evidently, to lots of other people? Why does it matter whether or not I knew him personally? I'm not mourning his death because of his abilities as a marketing guru, nor am I mourning his death as a user, per se, of Apple products (though they do enable me to be more creatively productive on a daily basis). I'm mourning his death because he taught me, at a relatively young age, important lessons about disregarding external expectations, about thinking of death as a motivational tool, about the importance of continually reflecting on the direction of my life and my career.

The sentiment you (and lots of others) are expressing—namely that there's a general disingenuousness surrounding the public's mourning of Steve Jobs's death—seems to me to be incredibly presumptuous. And your point about Ralph Steinman, one of the winners of this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, is categorically irrelevant. No doubt Ralph Steinman led an inspirational and remarkable life, one that deserves celebration. But he wasn't a public figure in the way that Steve Jobs was; he didn't have the same platform for public speeches and public interviews that made his thoughts readily available to the public at large. (If you were to make some kind of argument that, as a scientist, he ought to have more of a platform for his ideas, then you might have a valid point. But that's not what you expressed.)>> ^Jinx:
His death should be mourned in private sincerity by those close to him, not as a CEO, but as a friend/dad/husband. The rest of the world can fuck off.

I find this video a little blasé.
My $.02 on this subject is that we are just at one step in the long process of evolution. Once we can answer the first two questions that came to mind when we hit this evolutionary stage "Who am I? And why am I here?" we can jump into the next evolutionary stage. I am confident that there are many remaining steps in evolution, and just like monkeys who have no concept of planets, we have no concept of anything beyond our observable universe - and by that, I don't mean god. It would probably take a physiological change first, as I am sure that the answer to the age-old question is not something we can observe, but something we can deduct.

Only arrogance would dictate that we have reached our evolutionary apex as intelligent beings or that we are created in the likeness of a supreme being.

I don't think these hallucinations are exclusive to those going through physiological trauma. I know people that have experienced some of these things hours and days after they've lost a really close loved one (brother, mother, etc). I would hypothesize that this would be related to the abnormal dopamine function noted in the essay. Death is such a heavy and permanent thing that it has a very real physiological effect(for those of you that have experienced this can attest to it being akin to being "hit in the gut").

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Perfect logic!>> ^blackoreb:

According the study cited in the video, the incidence of cancer is significantly different for gay men versus straight men. It seems to me that this means either: a) gay men are physiologically different from straight men (and are not gay by choice); or b) God gives people cancer to punish them?
All you straight people with cancer should call the heavenly support desk ASAP, 'cause God thinks you are gay.

According the study cited in the video, the incidence of cancer is significantly different for gay men versus straight men. It seems to me that this means either: a) gay men are physiologically different from straight men (and are not gay by choice); or b) God gives people cancer to punish them?

All you straight people with cancer should call the heavenly support desk ASAP, 'cause God thinks you are gay.

Sharks are apex predators. Last time I checked, geese were not.>> ^legacy0100:

Mind you that I have never tried shark fin soup, but I must point out that Ramsey again puts himself in the shoes of an extremist. I've seen the documentaries of Ramsay and he is not this intense egomaniac he presents himself in front of Cameras. So I'm not sure how much he believes in the things he's preaches in this video.
But my main concern of this video is this ridiculous Hypocracy that's going on in this video. He has yet again taken this role as a very ethnocentric typical westerner judging and criticizing cultures that are different from his own for the sake of entertaining television. In the video he is arguing that harvesting fins from sharks are bad because:
1. Sharks are endangered species
2. The rest of the shark meat is being wasted.
3. The fins doesn't taste that good.
4. Sharks are killed inhumanely.

Then I've compared it with a delicacy from western tradition: Foie gra. http://www.aprl.org/sdcitybeat.php
1. Foie Gras Geese are Specially bred species that will not survive out in the wild. They are specialized to live ina mechanized farm to yield maximum production.
2. Goose meat is generally gamier and intensely flavored, and considered a 'delicacy'. Translation= People would rather eat chicken.
3. A lot of Easteners do not like the taste of Foie Gras, as they consider it to be too rich and fatty.
4. Geese are force-fed against their will, and killed as any farm animal would.
The only difference between these two delicacies is that western chefs are 'taught' to be comfortable with process of making Foie Gras. They are 'taught' to think it's okay to force-feed the Goose, that they're physiologically different from us, and that shoving metal tubes down their throat doesn't hurt them as much as we imagine it to be, so it's okay to do it.
So as long as we are used to the idea, it's perfectly normal. After all, western chefs make good money off of serving Foie Gras. But Shark fins? No western customer has ever came in demanding those. So it's pretty useless in his/her eyes.
The only argument the western Foie Gras' got going for is that the Goose species isn't endangered, since it's bred in a mass farm, in a cramped space, being force-fed periodically.
Yea, I find this video very hypocritical. Oh and then there's the problem of Eurpoean fisheries over farming the fish and devastating local ecology. Oh and then there's western demand for large fish, which has created this monster of a shrimp farming economy in Southeast Asia that's basically creating the most disgusting thing you can put in your mouth, yet westerners still buy them up.
Yea. So... Why is Ramsay, someone who's openly endorsing these products by constantly releasing recipes using Foie Gras and other unethical shit, hosting this video?

>> ^legacy0100:

Mind you that I have never tried shark fin soup, but I must point out that Ramsey again puts himself in the shoes of an extremist. I've seen the documentaries of Ramsay and he is not this intense egomaniac he presents himself in front of Cameras. So I'm not sure how much he believes in the things he's preaches in this video.
But my main concern of this video is this ridiculous Hypocracy that's going on in this video. He has yet again taken this role as a very ethnocentric typical westerner judging and criticizing cultures that are different from his own for the sake of entertaining television. In the video he is arguing that harvesting fins from sharks are bad because:
1. Sharks are endangered species
2. The rest of the shark meat is being wasted.
3. The fins doesn't taste that good.
4. Sharks are killed inhumanely.

Then I've compared it with a delicacy from western tradition: Foie gra. http://www.foodreference.com/html/artgoose.html
1. Foie Gras Geese are Specially bred species that will not survive out in the wild. They are specialized to live ina mechanized farm to yield maximum production.
2. Goose meat is generally gamier and intensely flavored, and considered a 'delicacy'. Translation= People would rather eat chicken.
3. A lot of Easteners do not like the taste of Foie Gras, as they consider it to be too rich and fatty.
4. Geese are force-fed against their will, and killed as any farm animal would.
The only difference between these two delicacies is that western chefs are 'taught' to be comfortable with process of making Foie Gras. They are 'taught' to think it's okay to force-feed the Goose, that they're physiologically different from us, and that shoving metal tubes down their throat doesn't hurt them as much as we imagine it to be, so it's okay to do it.
So as long as we are used to the idea, it's perfectly normal. After all, western chefs make good money off of serving Foie Gras. But Shark fins? No western customer has ever came in demanding those. So it's pretty useless in his/her eyes.
The only argument the western Foie Gras' got going for is that the Goose species isn't endangered, since it's bred in a mass farm, in a cramped space, being force-fed periodically.
Yea, I find this video very hypocritical. Oh and then there's the problem of Eurpoean fisheries over farming the fish and devastating local ecology. Oh and then there's western demand for large fish, which has created this monster of a shrimp farming economy in Southeast Asia that's basically creating the most disgusting thing you can put in your mouth, yet westerners still buy them up.
Yea. So... Why is Ramsay, someone who's openly endorsing these products by constantly releasing recipes using Foie Gras and other unethical shit, hosting this video?


So your argument is that it's ok for one ethnic group to wastefully kill an endangered species for an over-priced, tasteless status symbol because another ethnic group force feeds birds to make an over-priced status symbol?

Ah, the old "two wrongs make a right" argument! Ramsay's an ass. He's an ass that can cook, but he's still an ass. He can barely interact with other humans let alone animals (if my boss swore at me or called me "big boy", I'd quit so fast he wouldn't know what hit him. And I'd probably hit him). But that doesn't mean he's wrong about this or right about foie gras.

Mind you that I have never tried shark fin soup, but I must point out that Ramsey again puts himself in the shoes of an extremist. I've seen the documentaries of Ramsay and he is not this intense egomaniac he presents himself in front of Cameras. So I'm not sure how much he believes in the things he's preaches in this video.

But my main concern of this video is this ridiculous Hypocracy that's going on in this video. He has yet again taken this role as a very ethnocentric typical westerner judging and criticizing cultures that are different from his own for the sake of entertaining television. In the video he is arguing that harvesting fins from sharks are bad because:

1. Sharks are endangered species
2. The rest of the shark meat is being wasted.
3. The fins doesn't taste that good.
4. Sharks are killed inhumanely.


Then I've compared it with a delicacy from western tradition: Foie gra. http://www.aprl.org/sdcitybeat.php

1. Foie Gras Geese are Specially bred species that will not survive out in the wild. They are specialized to live ina mechanized farm to yield maximum production.
2. Goose meat is generally gamier and intensely flavored, and considered a 'delicacy'. Translation= People would rather eat chicken.
3. A lot of Easteners do not like the taste of Foie Gras, as they consider it to be too rich and fatty.
4. Geese are force-fed against their will, and killed as any farm animal would.

The only difference between these two delicacies is that western chefs are 'taught' to be comfortable with process of making Foie Gras. They are 'taught' to think it's okay to force-feed the Goose, that they're physiologically different from us, and that shoving metal tubes down their throat doesn't hurt them as much as we imagine it to be, so it's okay to do it.

So as long as we are used to the idea, it's perfectly normal. After all, western chefs make good money off of serving Foie Gras. But Shark fins? No western customer has ever came in demanding those. So it's pretty useless in his/her eyes.

The only argument the western Foie Gras' got going for is that the Goose species isn't endangered, since it's bred in a mass farm, in a cramped space, being force-fed periodically.

Yea, I find this video very hypocritical. Oh and then there's the problem of Eurpoean fisheries over farming the fish and devastating local ecology. Oh and then there's western demand for large prawns, which has created this monster of a shrimp farming economy in Southeast Asia that's basically creating the most disgusting thing you can put in your mouth, yet westerners still buy them up.

Yea. So... Why is Ramsay, someone who's openly endorsing these products by constantly releasing recipes using Foie Gras and other unethical shit, hosting this video?

Well, I'm honored to be in the running.

And it's not for nothing that a long and versatile tongue is not simply a function of wit and sarcasm, but its very shape and form has, indeed, been associated with enlightenment, with Buddhahood, as is cultivated through yoga, tantra, and other forms of kundalini meditation.. and evidenced by glossalalia, "speaking in tongues," quali, "Song of Solomon kisses like wine," etc. etc...

Even the fetal development of the oral cavity is due, in part, to the secretion of sweet-tasting muco-polysaccharides from the “heavenly” cranial vault in the newly forming roof of the fetal mouth.. known for millenia within Hindu traditions, and only recently suggested by scientific research.

A colleague of mine states that the physiological basis of spiritual experience -- the body's "natural LSD-Ecstasy" with no side effects, only natural maturities -- constitutes a long tongue and versatile tongue.

How hard could it be? You show up and communicate information within your field of expertise. The students take it all in. Job done.

It's not that simple.

You would have a very different perspective if you ever tried teaching yourself.

If you were responsible for educating 200 - 300 students with different learning styles, different motivating factors, different attention levels, different levels of discipline, different levels of comprehension, different types of psychology, different levels of intelligence, different levels of interest, different levels of sanity, different stages of physiological development (AKA puberty), etc. you'd get it.

In addition to 'teaching', an educator also needs to be a leader, a negotiator, a salesman, a disciplinarian, a politician, an administrator, a motivator, a receptionist, an advocate, a librarian, a manager, a public relations agent, a psychologist, an entertainer, an accountant, and for some students, a parent. If you are a music teacher, you get even more hats - arranger, copyist, bus scheduler, event planner, fund raiser, critic, graphic designer, contractor etc. (Running a high school band is like running a business, complete with a board, fundraiser income, expenses, employees, audits, etc.)

The 'teaching' part is the easiest part of the job. If there weren't so many responsibilities outside of the actual 'teaching', you and chilaxe would have a point. And, I haven't even mentioned dealing with administrators and parents, which is an art in and of itself.

I know you grew up in a region of the country that does not have high educational standards (and cruel stereotypes that reinforce these low standards), so I don't doubt that you've had more than your fair share of bad teachers. If anything, I think you have first hand experience of what happens when public education is neglected and underfunded. If you get the cuts you want in education, you will be saddling future generations with the same substandard education you experienced growing up. Is that really what you want?

I grew up in middle class Southern California, with teachers that were paid fairly, schools that were well funded and parents that involved themselves in the academic lives of their children. (3 of the biggest factors in student achievement). Out of the 40+ teachers I had from K-12, I can think of two that were bad (one was a morbidly obese right wing history teacher that spent as much time praising Reagan and Capitalism as he did teaching history, the other was a self-loathing Science teacher who seemed to fear any kind of social interaction). I can think of 14 that were exceptional teachers and human beings - I'm still in touch with a few of them. The rest were competent at their jobs, if not particularly memorable.

I got good grades and received a half scholarship to a prominent west coast university (fight on). Since then I've had the luxury of being able to play music for a living (and occasionally teach or compose). Public education did me a solid.

PS: I like when you share stories from your life with me. I find it much more moving and persuasive than being called a statist idiot.

>> ^doogle:

In what situation would I need to do this?
That would be helpful. Apart from "for fun".


Watch the video again, from the beginning, where it says "Indications." What follows is a list of situations in which this procedure is "indicated" (or "prescribed," or whatever layman's term for "you only do this when this situation occurs.") I can break them down for ya.

If you are ever in a situation where you find someone unconsious, with a pulse, but no signs breathing, you need to establish why they are not breathing. There are training videos and classes on this sort of thing, and I highly recommend everyone not only do so, but stay on top of new data and findings. Even just recently CPR guidelines have changed - mouth-to-mouth is only really necessary for drowning victims. Cardiac arrest is usually the cause of most instantaneous medical emergencies, and keeping steady chest compression rhythm to manually pump the heart is more important to saving the brain and oxygen-dependent tissues M2M breaths should only be administered once or twice every 30 compressions or so.

Anyway, to break things down:

"Severe Maxilofacial trauma" Nasty wounds to the jaw and mouth that prevent mouth-to-mouth or mouth-to-airbag contact.

"Severe Bleeding to the airway/oropharynx" Just another big word for hole on everyone's face that is their mouth extending back into their vocal chords. Blood and/or clotting is preventing breathing. CPR would force blood into the lungs in a bad way.

"Foreign matter in upper airway" They've got something lodged in their throat, far enough in that you can simply pull it out with your fingers, or you can't get them to a position to "heimlich" them (not that we use the Heimlich maneuver anymore - there's a similar, more modern-science-informed method).

"Edema secondary to burns to the face and airway" Edema is another word for swelling. Again, you can't mouth-to-mouth or to-airbag over burn wounds, and sometimes your throat can swell shut from burns, be they burns from fire or chemical.

The last couple should be self-explanitory.

What then follows are a list of "Contraindications" or situations in which you should AVOID this procedure. In medicine, these are important. For example, massaging someone's swollen legs after they just landed from an airplane flight is contraindicated, as leg swelling is a sign on deep-vein thrombosis. Failure to identify and accommodate contraindications will could lead to patient death exposing you to legal and civil liability. And the guilt of knowing you killed someone you were trying to help.

I'm not a doctor. I'm just a certified massage therapist with over 600 hours of training in massage-oriented anatomy, physiology, pathology and ethics, among other important lessons. I have no authority to make diagnoses.. But my massage school gave me enough information to know when I could potentially harm someone, and how to identify those situations should they arise in my practice.

There is a physiological reason they do it, just like the guys --

I say grunt on, sound unladylike, and win all the matches you can.

http://jezebel.com/5814569/women-apparently-ruining-tennis-with-their-excessive-grunting

A short course in neurobiology teaches us all of what Deepak is saying is rubbish. We experience emotion due to various combinations of neurotransmitter release and physiological changes in the body.

What he seems to be trying to do is use the theory of quantum fluctuation and the wave/particle duality of electrons to justify his own theory that if it can't be measured or explained properly/precisely then it must lie outside the realm of our physical entity. Where is argument falls short is that what we perceive as physical matter IS made up of all this weirdness that physics is only just beginning to explain.

So I guess my point is that he's indicating that some weird stuff is going on, perhaps even outside what would currently be defined as our physical bodies. I don't disagree with this, but my point is that it is the definition of a physical body that needs to be altered, and this will improve as our understanding of physics improves. So we should be looking to physics for answers, not for mind/body dualism.

evidence for life after death:

1) something about biology/physiology responding to hypothermia...
2) ...
3) prophets?