[citation required]

Really, this is a lot of bullshit.

24 Million images over a lifetime? I'm saying that's really, really low... What do you consider an 'image'? Even if we take it down to movie frames, which occur far less frequently than the eye can process, we get... for an 80 year lifespan 24frames*60secs*60mins*24hrs*365days*80yrs = 60,549,120,000, or 60.5 BILLION images. (Or 60.5 thousand million as it should actually, correctly be known... but I digress).

And 24 images a second is a seriously low call.

2 Million working parts? By what measure? Cells? Actual, individual, identifiable pieces? If you're talking photo receptor cells... "The human retina contains about 120 million rod cells and 6 million cone cells" (wikipedia).

36,000 bits an hour? Oh for fuck's sake... less than 36Kb of info an hour? My ZX Spectrum can do better than that, what unmitigated bullshit.

'All babies are born colour blind'. Actually, this used to be thought to be true:

"In the past it was thought that babies were born colour blind and only developed the ability to view colours as they developed. Recent studies have proven this incorrect and it is now widely accepted that infants can distinguish colours and patterns at birth, and continue to hone this skill for many months."

(Source)

But again... not researched, and shit.


This video is one of MY MOST HATED THINGS ON THE INTERNET. Dickheads pulling together random shit and spouting it as if it's fact.

This person knows NOTHING about the eye.

I'm going to upvote in the hope that people view this sift, and read this comment and perhaps spend a bit more time critically thinking about things they see/read on the internet before they take it as fact.

Very well said, and I agree with you on many points. However, I don't believe that simple abortion is the answer. I think most people agree that fewer abortions in this country would be a good thing. I would have liked Palin's answer much more if she had said something more like my opinion, which is:

Yes, I do believe that abortion in the case of rape or incest is wrong and I would counsel a woman in that situation to go through with the pregnancy. It is, of course, a great sacrifice for her both emotionally and physically, and that is why I believe that it ought to be her choice. Her agency was taken from her by the man who impregnated her, and if she believe that her "life" (lifestyle) would be irreparably destroyed by the pregnancy, than she should be free to decide whether her life or the embryo's life is more human.

The answer to reducing abortions in general is not to make all abortions legal. There are steps that we must take in order to reduce abortion rates including providing healthcare and adoption programs for unwanted pregnancies, better and earlier sex education (with full consent of the parents), and free access to contraception. Abortion should be illegal for pregnancies more advanced than 24 weeks because when higher brain functioning and pain receptors are developed, there can be almost no doubt that the child ought to have human rights.

But pragmatics should never be a reason for a moral decision. That is why we ought NEVER to torture prisoners. Sure, we might save some American lives by torturing terrorists for information, but torture is something we do not (or should not) do as a matter of principle.

>> ^SDGundamX:
Two years ago, if you had asked me my position on abortion I would have told you I was pro-choice all the way. Then I saw an actual abortion performed and had everything I believed turned upside down. Seeing the doctor wash little dismembered body-parts--arms, legs, parts of a skull--and count everything up to make sure he got it all... that pretty much convinced me I needed to re-examine my beliefs. I have tried since that time to be open to all positions on the matter and to form my own opinion based on reason and logic. The conclusion I came to is very similar to swampgirl's--abortion is morally wrong but is also a necessary evil.
I'm an atheist, so I don't oppose abortion on any religious grounds. No, like swampgirl said earlier, I just think we should stop beating around the bush. We're taking human lives here. Granted, we're doing it as mercifully as we can (i.e. before the nervous and pain response systems are fully developed) and for ostensibly good reasons. But I think too many people try to gloss over the fact that a human life is ended in the process. I think people are uncomfortable with the idea and that's why we quibble over when a human is an officially recognized "person" or when certain rights should be ascribed.
However, although I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I do not agree with making abortions illegal. That probably seems paradoxical to most people, but it stems from the fact that I am pragmatic. There are serious problems with making abortion illegal: backroom abortions and their associated risks; a suddenly skyrocketing number of babies that need adoption placement in a system that is already burgeoning under the weight of unwanted or neglected children; massive population expansion at a time when resources such as clean water are becoming scarce; and so on. In an ideal world, we could make abortions illegal and provide superior care and support for all women who must carry unwanted babies and place all of those unwanted babies with caring, loving, families. But I've seen enough of the world to know that it is anything but ideal.
And so I believe that as horrible as it is, legal abortions are necessary in the world. It kind of depresses me a little bit that I can find something immoral and yet still condone it. I think maybe it's a sign that I'm getting old that I'm willing to compromise my morals for pragmatic concerns.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that high fructose corn syrup (rather a chemical compound found in it) blocks a receptor that lets you know when you're full. Obviously consuming something that's high in caloric value and prevents you from feeling full is a bad combination. I think actual sugar has the same effect but nowhere near as pronounced since it doesn't contain as much fructose.

Food Reward in the Absence of Taste Receptor Signaling

Neuron, Volume 58, Issue 2, 24 April 2008, Page 295
Ivan E. de Araujo, Albino J. Oliveira-Maia, Tatyana D. Sotnikova, Raul R. Gainetdinov, Marc G. Caron, Miguel A.L. Nicolelis and Sidney A. Simon


Summary

Food palatability and hedonic value play central roles in nutrient intake. However, postingestive effects can influence food preferences independently of palatability, although the neurobiological bases of such mechanisms remain poorly understood. Of central interest is whether the same brain reward circuitry that is responsive to palatable rewards also encodes metabolic value independently of taste signaling. Here we show that trpm5−/− mice, which lack the cellular machinery required for sweet taste transduction, can develop a robust preference for sucrose solutions based solely on caloric content. Sucrose intake induced dopamine release in the ventral striatum of these sweet-blind mice, a pattern usually associated with receipt of palatable rewards. Furthermore, single neurons in this same ventral striatal region showed increased sensitivity to caloric intake even in the absence of gustatory inputs. Our findings suggest that calorie-rich nutrients can directly influence brain reward circuits that control food intake independently of palatability or functional taste transduction.

Full Article (Subscription only):

http://preview.tinyurl.com/57pgmn

Have a friend that was having a major manipulation done to her shoulder, sort of a pre-surgery relocation or something that entailed the doc putting his knee in her chest and tugging or whatnot. They gave her a drug, I think maybe orally administered that allowed her to be sentient and conversant and cooperative, but she didn't remember a thing. Struck me as something from a science fiction movie or spy thriller. I think it also dulled the pain, but I remember thinking "if you caused a lot of pain to the patient, but they don't remember it, were they ever in pain" I don't remember what it was called. Forgettitol^tm? [edit:] It's called Versed.

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
No, general anesthesia is not like physiologic sleep, the latter being a complex and active function of neurons located in the brain stem, in and around the thalamus. If you are unlucky enough, a small stroke in this area, while not damaging a significant portion of the brain, can result in permanent coma.

For an interesting sleep disorder, look up fatal familial insomnia. It's rare, and one you don't want to get.

The mechanisms of the some of the general anesthetics are still unknown. For instance, we don't know how the most widely used ones, the halogenated hydrocarbon gases, (halothane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, etc.) have their effect. Their potency is significantly related to their lipid solubility, which suggests they get in your neural cell lipid membranes, and alter them (temporarily) such that they can't carry on communication with other neurons. They've been used for 150 years now, and we still don't know exactly how they work!
Many of the IV anesthetics inhibit specific receptors and antagonize specific neurotransmitters, such that we do know how most of them work.

Cheers,

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
No, I don't have that kind of depth of knowledge. Sleep and dreams are so mysterious and fascinating, though. Is anesthesia anything like sleep, or nothing at all? Does a patient have REM under the gas?

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Watched this last night and forgot to upvote. I was diverted by looking for video of the goats with the myotonia, undoubtedly a similar phenomena. Alas, there was already a similar sift, so I dropped it. You ARE going medical on us.

No, general anesthesia is not like physiologic sleep, the latter being a complex and active function of neurons located in the brain stem, in and around the thalamus. If you are unlucky enough, a small stroke in this area, while not damaging a significant portion of the brain, can result in permanent coma.

For an interesting sleep disorder, look up fatal familial insomnia. It's rare, and one you don't want to get.

The mechanisms of the some of the general anesthetics are still unknown. For instance, we don't know how the most widely used ones, the halogenated hydrocarbon gases, (halothane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, etc.) have their effect. Their potency is significantly related to their lipid solubility, which suggests they get in your neural cell lipid membranes, and alter them (temporarily) such that they can't carry on communication with other neurons. They've been used for 150 years now, and we still don't know exactly how they work!
Many of the IV anesthetics inhibit specific receptors and antagonize specific neurotransmitters, such that we do know how most of them work.

Cheers,

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
No, I don't have that kind of depth of knowledge. Sleep and dreams are so mysterious and fascinating, though. Is anesthesia anything like sleep, or nothing at all? Does a patient have REM under the gas?

In reply to this comment by snoozedoctor:
Watched this last night and forgot to upvote. I was diverted by looking for video of the goats with the myotonia, undoubtedly a similar phenomena. Alas, there was already a similar sift, so I dropped it. You ARE going medical on us.

Most non-english-speaking developed countries have already stopped or banned water fluoridation. This includes Japan, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands, the former Czechoslovakia, the former USSR, and France. The only benefit of fluoride is a TOPICAL effect on the TOOTH ENAMEL. There are other effective and safer ways of preventing tooth decay. The harms of fluoride are systemic. Humans have no nutritional need for fluoride. There have been proper placebo-controlled trials on rats with fluoridated drinking water demonstrating many kinds of harms including behavioral abnormalities and visible changes to CNS structure. There have been many correlational studies showing that areas with 2-3ppm fluoride in drinking water have lower average IQs than similar areas with 0.3ppm fluoride. Typical amounts used in government mandated drinking water fluoridation are 0.7-1.3ppm. Fluoride is known to cause selective reduction in the number of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. sources more sources NRC report

Dystonic reactions, while rarely serious, are nevertheless distressing to those having these involuntary muscle contractions. This is a relatively common side- effect of the neuroleptic class of drugs, i.e Haldol. The drugs mess with your brain's dopamine receptors. Benadryl (the over-the-counter allergy medicine), is the most commonly used antidote.

^you don't have your "life ruined by pot", rather, your life could be ruined by society's intolerance towards it. Or by your own inabilities to handle reality, thus you turn to the herb to escape. Also, as a physicist, you should probably be sensitive to causality. Which came first? The poor planning pothead or the weed that has been used by beneficial members of groups/societies since prehistory.

oh about permanently altering your brain chemistry, i'm sure it's more of a physical change than a chemical one. From what I know it only triggers chemicals that already exist and stimulate receptors. Once it's out of your brain, it goes back to normal.

Drug induced sleep can be of two varieties, (1) "drug assisted" (mostly benzodiazepines, like lorazepam (Ativan), or imidazopyridines, like Zolpidem (Ambien), and (2) true "general anesthesia." Benzos assist sleep but because they are potent amnestics, one is less likely to remember a dream, even if you had one. Melatonin is not a benzo. It is an endogenous hormone, produced by the pineal gland. Melatonin is involved in regulating circadian rhythms, although it is not the main determinate. High doses of melatonin seem to be associated with more REM sleep and more dreaming.

"General Anesthesia" is not normal sleep and, rather, is unconsciousness produced by specific inhibition of neuronal communication (synapsis), whether by inactivation of protein channels on cell membranes, or by inhibition of GABA receptors, (a neurotransmitter). Deep levels of general anesthesia can flat-line your EEG, meaning your brain is totally shut down and is doing no synaptic work at all.
However, people may do normal sleeping after recovery from general anesthesia and they do occasionally relate dreaming during the period of recovery. In particular, the sedative/anesthetic Propofol is associated with some "erotic" dreaming and I have had some people relate rather vivid and interesting content. I had one older gentlemen who wanted to be put "back to sleep" so he could continue his "relations" with Gina Lollibrigida.

Ah, I see. Yeah, when cannabinoid receptors are stimulated you can say quite interesting non sequiturs regarding the "earf"

oh it would be a real trip that's for sure....ain't gonna happen, and if it does, look to the roaches to scramble to fix what America thinks they want-a race to create new problems and provide the solutions...Plan C3
hey and feddy, while marijuana is not as you say in the sense of many other substances, addictive, staying in the circuit as a way of life, with daily use, always stimulating those receptors that gives one the familiar analgesic, psychoactive, and physiological pancreatic effects, it can become a debilitating problem for some-the first few steps are the hardest.....bong-boy!

I can think of a simple formula for problems with chronic pot use:

Bong-hits >= fixed budget + availability of a nutritious repast + munchies satisfied with fats, sugars, and sodium =possible need for radical and expensive surgeries

other scenarios in enlightened society include drug tests at work, relationships damaged or not reaching their fullest potential, and cotton mouth.

Talk out your arse much cobalt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis

[edit] Toxicity
According to the Merck Index,[2] the LD50 (dosage lethal to 50% of rats tested) of Δ9-THC by inhalation is 42 mg/kg of body weight. That is the equivalent of a man weighing 75 kg (165 lb) inhaling the THC found in 21 grams of extremely high-potency (15% THC) marijuana all in one sitting, assuming no THC is lost through smoke loss or absorption by the lungs. For oral consumption, the LD50 for male rats is 1270 mg/kg, and 730 mg/kg for females—equivalent to the THC in about a pound of 15% THC marijuana.[3] The ratio of cannabis material required to saturate cannabinoid receptors to the amount required for a fatal overdose is 1:40,000.[4] There have been no reported deaths or permanent injuries sustained as a result of a marijuana overdose. It is practically impossible to overdose on marijuana, as the user would certainly either fall asleep or otherwise become incapacitated from the effects of the drug before being able to consume enough THC to be mortally toxic. According to a United Kingdom government report, using cannabis is less dangerous than tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol in social harms, physical harm and addiction.[5]





[edit] Confounding combination
The most obvious confounding factor in cannabis research is the prevalent usage of other recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.[6] One paper claims marijuana use can increase risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. [7] Such complications demonstrate the need for studies on cannabis that have stronger controls, and investigations into the symptoms of cannabis use that may also be caused by tobacco. Some people question whether the agencies that do the research try to make an honest effort to present an accurate, unbiased summary of the evidence, or whether they "cherry-pick" their data, and others caution that the raw data, and not the final conclusions, are what should be examined.[8]

However, contrasting studies have linked the smoking of cannabis to lung cancer and the growth of cancerous tumors.[9][10][11][12] A 2002 report by the British Lung Foundation estimated that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.[13] Some of these finding may be attributed to the well-known custom that many British citizens often mix tobacco with marijuana. It should also be noted that a recent study conducted at a lab in UCLA has found no link between marijuana usage and lung cancer.[citation needed]

Cannabis also has a synergistic toxic effect with the food additive Butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and possibly the related compound butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). The study concluded, "Exposure to marijuana smoke in conjunction with BHA, a common food additive, may promote deleterious health effects in the lung." BHA & BHT are man-made fat preservatives, and are found in many packaged foods including: plastics in boxed Cereal, Jello, Slim Jims, and more. [14]


[edit] Memory
Cannabis is known to act on the hippocampus (an area of the brain associated with memory and learning), and impair short term memory and attention for the duration of its effects and in some cases for the next day[15]. In the long term, some studies point to enhancement of particular types of memory.[16] Cannabis was found to be neuroprotective against excitotoxicity and is therefore beneficial for the prevention of progressive degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease.[17] A 1998 report commissioned in France by Health Secretary of State Bernard Condevaux and directed by Dr. Pierre-Bernard Roques determined that, "former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography, were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques," (like MRI). "Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC (Langfield et al., 1988) was not shown (Slikker et al., 1992)" (translated). He concluded that cannabis does not have any neurotoxicity as defined in the report, unlike alcohol and cocaine.[18][19][20]


[edit] Adulterated cannabis
Contaminants may be found in hashish when consumed from soap bar-type sources[21]. The dried flowers of the plant may be contaminated by the plant taking up heavy metals and other toxins from its growing environment[22]. Recently, there have been reports of herbal cannabis being adulterated with minute (silica [usually glass or sand], or sugar} crystals in the UK and Ireland. These crystals resemble THC in appearance, yet are much heavier, and so serve again to increase the weight, and hence street value of the cannabis[23].


[edit] Pregnancy
Studies have found that children of marijuana-smoking mothers more frequently suffer from permanent cognitive deficits, concentration disorders, hyperactivity, and impaired social interactions than non-exposed children of the same age and social background.[24][25] A recent study with participation of scientists from Europe and the United States, have now identified that endogenous cannabinoids, molecules naturally produced by our brains and functionally similar to THC from cannabis, play unexpectedly significant roles in establishing how certain nerve cells connect to each other. The formation of connections among nerve cells occurs during a relatively short period in the fetal brain. The study tries to give a closer understanding of if and when cannabis damages the fetal brain[26][27].[28]

Other studies on Jamaica have suggested that cannabis use by expectant mothers does not appear to cause birth defects or developmental delays in their newborn children.[29][30] In a study in 1994 of Twenty-four Jamaican neonates exposed to marijuana prenatally and 20 non exposed neonates comparisons were made at 3 days and 1 month old, using the Brazelton Neonatal Assessment Scale, including supplementary items to capture possible subtle effects. Results showed there were no significant differences between exposed and nonexposed neonates on day 3. At 1 month, the exposed neonates showed better physiological stability and required less examiner facilitation to reach organized states. The neonates of heavy-marijuana-using mothers had better scores on autonomic stability, quality of alertness, irritability, and self-regulation and were judged to be more rewarding for caregivers. This work was supported by the March of Dimes Foundation.[31]


[edit] Cancer
On 23 May 2006, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles announced that the use of cannabis does not appear to increase the risk of developing lung cancer, or increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus.[32]The study involved 2252 participants, with some of the most chronic marijuana smokers having smoked over 22,000 marijuana cigarettes.[32][33][34][35] The finding of Donald Tashkin, M.D., and his team of researchers in 2006 refines their earlier studies published in a Dec. 17th 2000 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarker and Prevention.[12] Many opponents of marijuana incorrectly cite the original finding of UCLA Medical Center from 2000 as "proof" that marijuana leaves the users at higher risk for cancer of the lung, and cancerous tumors,[9] even though the researchers at the UCLA Medical Center have revised their finding with a more in-depth study on the effects of the use of marijuana. This seemed to contradict assumptions made after some studies, like those from Dale Geirringer et al., which found that 118 carcinogens were produced when marijuana underwent combustion, and two carcinogens {2-Methyl-2, 4(2H-1-benzopyran-5-ol) & 5-[Acetyl benz[e]azulene-3,8-dione} formed when marijuana underwent vaporization with the Volcano Vaporizer.[36] To help explain this seemingly chemical proof of carcinogenity inherent in the process of combustion, Tashkin noted that "one possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."[32]

hmmm... if all the angles were right-angles... thats wild.

On the topic of salvia, remember, those wonderful worlds and states you transiently explore only exist in that great mass of electrochemistry that is your personal brain. Its easy to get caught up in those places but there are some mind-blowing things going on in our shared world as well. Coolest thing about salvia that I've read is its not a serotonin receptor agonist as far as people can determine, but a opioid receptor aganostic. Which is very peculiar for a hallucinogen, and apparently leads to peculiar effects when compared to the classics.

Several problems with this setup:
1. The room would have to be tightly sealed so the SPL would be sufficient to move the window, failing that:
2. The sound source would have to be very near the window
3. The laser source would have to be highly focused and the window would have to be just such an angle to catch the reflection
4. If the window weren't sturdy, the incident beam would reflect far out of the range of the photo-receptor
5. If a fan or furnace (or anything that moved more air than a pair of lungs) were operating in the room, the impact of the voice on the window would be lost in the background noise.

All that said, it's still pretty cool. It's just not very effective.

"Bob, what's that bright red light shining in the corner of the window?"