found a paper published in a neurological journal about fluoride. I can't read the damn thing though.
http://www.mims.com/Page.aspx?menuid=pubmeddetail&pmid=medline10n0113%5C4339152.xml&h=sodium+fluoride
titled

"Effect of sodium fluoride on the uptake of serotonin by human thrombocytes and on the aggregation of human thrombocytes.
"

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

Does what? Is there a link I'm missing here?

In reply to this comment by chicchorea:
Howdy...been a while.

Please sir, does this and its like qualify as fodder for the instabannon?

Being rather slow on the uptake, sometimes, I've let these slip through the cracks I am ashamed to say.

Howdy...been a while.

Please sir, does this and its like qualify as fodder for the instabannon?

Being rather slow on the uptake, sometimes, I've let these slip through the cracks I am ashamed to say.

There is nothing in these articles about men acting logical and going into problem-solving mode, rather that they have a more activated fight or flight response and women a more empathetic response. Read the article and you will see that you are going way too far in your conclusions (http://www.cfn.upenn.edu/perfusion/stress.pdf).

A quote from the article:
"Similarly, the present finding of greater prefrontal and limbic activation in males and females respectively should not be implicated with the sex stereotype in lay culture for the “emotional women” and “rational men”. As suggested by several studies, the gender difference in emotionality per se may be an ill-posed question (Barrett et al., 1998; Fischer, 1993)." (p. 18, Wang, et al, unknown year).

The stress test was also counting backwards from 1600 by subtracting 13. Not very similar to sitting in a car when a tornado comes. As a bonus there were no differences in performance between women and men, meaning men did not perform better! Don't quote popular science bro. Go straight to the source

That said there are obvious differences in our brains, but we do not know enough yet to claim what you do. >> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^Jinx:
>> ^LarsaruS:
My really long post...

Women of the sift. Does this offend you more or less than Westy's comment. Vote now, cos I think it might be close.

I was not out to put down females and if my comment came across like that then I was not clear enough, my bad.
I was simply talking about the biological differences in how males and females think, see links (first 3 things I found but there is a lot of research on this subject being done), due to being different, biologically, and having evolved with different pressures acting on us. It is not strange that we think differently and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Why do males go into "problem solving mode" and not "feeling mode" IMO? For example when a sabre toothed tiger pounces you you have to act rationally and solve the problem, if you cower in fear you get eaten. Evolution favoured the clearheaded, fast thinking and problem solving minds of the male hunters over the ones who were slower on the uptake or felt first and acted second.
Different roles (think hunter/gatherer times) --> Different brains --> Different thought patterns.
Otherwise every single person in the world would think exactly the same way.
http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/diamond_male_female.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051201165615.htm (2005)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0403-men_are_from_mars.htm (2008)
(even has a video but I can't seem to embed stuff, oh well)

>> ^Jinx:

>> ^LarsaruS:
My really long post...

Women of the sift. Does this offend you more or less than Westy's comment. Vote now, cos I think it might be close.


I was not out to put down females and if my comment came across like that then I was not clear enough, my bad.

I was simply talking about the biological differences in how males and females think, see links (first 3 things I found but there is a lot of research on this subject being done), due to being different, biologically, and having evolved with different pressures acting on us. It is not strange that we think differently and it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Why do males go into "problem solving mode" and not "feeling mode" IMO? For example when a sabre toothed tiger pounces you you have to act rationally and solve the problem, if you cower in fear you get eaten. Evolution favoured the clearheaded, fast thinking and problem solving minds of the male hunters over the ones who were slower on the uptake or felt first and acted second.
Different roles (think hunter/gatherer times) --> Different brains --> Different thought patterns.
Otherwise every single person in the world would think exactly the same way.

www.newhorizons.org/neuro/diamond_male_female.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051201165615.htm (2005)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2008/0403-men_are_from_mars.htm (2008)
(even has a video but I can't seem to embed stuff, oh well)

Chill out EDD, I'm busting balls over here-Yeah, I surmise video gamers are pound-for-pound about as valuable as beef tripe to the human diet and that when someone's mind goes directly to legal implications when considering an act of passionate, reasonable, revenge it's a sign of blind obedience, servitude and downright laziness.

NordlichRichter's observations are indicative of a society who has had a noose around their nuts too tight for too long.

Hope the chick is for real, and hope that her boyfriend can take his licks like the pussified, selfish, pixel-zombie that he is. If he pulls a legal card it simply justifies her quest to defame him, in the bogus arena of internet nerddom.

Oh and baby, some guys are smarter and would have seen the crazy all over your face before any real commitment....but gamers are a little slow on the uptake.

And then they add salt to it.

At least it hasn't been spiked with foul tasting compounds of Cl and F that are intended to kill bacteria and to get you to ingest things that are really only useful topically to slow the erosion of teeth and have no additional benefit (but likely unwanted side effects) when taken systemically. Just search Google scholar for fluoride neurotoxicity in rats or check the CDC's recommendations on upper limits for fluoride levels in drinking water and consider how impossible it is to control the dose when people are drinking different amounts of water.

Fluoride is rapidly eliminated from the bloodstream via the kidneys and uptake by calcified tissues. However, people who lack proper kidney function are vulnerable to being poisoned by fluoridated water. The mechanism of action as a poison is essentially interfering with all kinds of enzymes. It has very broad dose-dependent systemic effects. The upper limit for safety is only 2x the "optimal level" used for preventing cavities, which is an absurdly small margin of error given the uncontrolled quantities of tap water people consume.

It's also immoral to force a specific medical treatment on everyone without their consent UNLESS abstention from the treatment endangers people other than themselves (i.e., vaccines).

I love watching dry British comedians do their thing in the US. It really takes a while to cross the cultural barrier, and they never quite seem to nail it. That was very funny, but it's toned down and the audience is quite slow on the uptake.

Gervais has the same reaction when he does his sets.

I think with religion you have to use a mix of probability and logic. In my mind, the probability of a omnipotent being or creator seems unlikely given the evidence or information that we have so far obtained. The fact that it's unlikely doesn't prove that it isn't true. Given the question 'Does a God exist?' - binary logic cannot be applied as it is an unknown, it can only be applied to questions with definate yes or no answers.

With such a broad subject such as religion, with multiple sects, understandings and uptakes to it's teachings, ranging from a no questions asked 'yes, the earth and everything on it was created by a being in 7 days, fact' to 'I don't believe this stuff ACTUALLY happened, but I think it's a good set of teachings to live by' and everything inbetween, it's difficult to apply Sir David's quote to any particular set of christian beliefs, especially with so little information available. As mentioned before however, it's most likely that he is arguing against the creationist theory, with which he is quite famous for doing so - see his wikipedia page section on this matter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Attenborough#Religion_and_creationism ). It seems natural for David to have an opinion on this matter given his career, and likely many people are interested in his thoughts rather than it being an attack on a religion.

My view is that he is attempting to state his case against creationist belief, that evolution is non-existant, and that an argument for god and intelligent design cannot be made by select choosing examples from nature rather than sampling from it as a whole, you can't choose one thing and ignore another. I wouldn't say that it is an 'attack' on christianity, that would be similar to saying 'I don't believe in santa, because I didn't get any christmas presents' to be an 'attack' on saint nick. He is just putting accross his view/opinion on the question being asked. In my opinion, the interviewer was linking the question about belief in a god and the philosophy of nature.

I for one would like to see the entirity of this interview.

Also,

>> ^gwiz665:
There is no positive light that could possibly outweigh the blight on humanity that is Christianity. When it finally is extinguished and we humans have moved on, the world will be a better place. Christianity is the cancer of the mind.


I find it difficult to believe that someone can be ignorant enough to tar all individuals in a religion with the same brush. Even broadly speaking, that's a strong and highly generalised view. I have no problem with people believing in what they like, as long as they don't put their belief on me, use it in an argument or apply it irrationally to important matters (such as being elected into office lolololol ¬_¬), they can believe what they wish. To call christianity a cancer of the mind could equally be replied to by saying your narrow view of religion is certainly a handicap.

So I've heard but I was 9 and 11 when they came out, respectively, so I'm a little slow on the uptake.

In reply to this comment by NeuralNoise:
both movies are amazing...

In reply to this comment by Edeot:
I just added Being John Malkovich and Adaptation to my torrent list.

I'm really impressed that a guy from Jackass can do so well artistically.

Not true joe, the rate of ip4 uptake is not constant, and the rate of ip4 returns isnt keeping up with it.

At some point within the next 10 years, we will run out of allocatable address space.

And dual-stack IP6 wont cut it either, cause you still need ip4 addys to run with it.

Vendors dont currently make any ip6 only compatible CPE, and the commercial grade stuff that ISP's buy still isnt anywhere near ready for full deployment. It lacks key stuff thats required to be able to fully service customers.

Its a big issue...cause when space runs out, you may be waiting 10-20 min, or even more, just to get a connection to the net.

Heres a forum posting I made on an aussie ISP website called Whirlpool, sparking up a discussion about this exact issue with several of australias leading ISP engineers. (They have "ISP representative" under their names).

A lengthy, but decent read.

http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/867470.html

I guess I'm a bit slow on the uptake, but would someone please explain to me why this is so brilliant? I don't get it I'm afraid.

I mean it was a nice little clip, but I wasn't blown away like everyone else was and I want to know why doggone it.

She keeps her eyes closed an awful lot while explaining things, dangerous levels of smug?

I was actually looking at these earlier today. Check out as Mr.Uptake completely runs that stop sign in a residential area: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKRPuza1RKU in his Volkswagen Jetta, as he was sure to remind people in another video. I have a hard time taking them seriously and I actually agree with most of their base level positions. What about the rest of America, is that effectual protest?

As far as the actual raids, it sounds horrible. I think they were looking for WMDs Molotov cocktails and other implements of destruction, and of course didn't find any (as far as I'm aware). Which makes me think the cops had a whole heap of BS for evidence to get the warrants.

I have a Nvidia 8800 GTS, I downloaded and installed the CUDA packed drivers to enable PhysX.

I decided to skip all the demo wankery and go straight to testing PhysX in Ghost Recon 2 and Unreal Tournament 3. There was a severe hit on performance with PhysX enabled, I had to drop from 1920 to 1280 to get anything really playable at 60 FPS or so. The effects added seemed gimmicky and didn't add anything to the game atmospherically.

So far not worth it. Though perhaps in the long term, with developer uptake, this will give Nvidia a certain exploitable edge over ATI.

Yeah, I got that now. I'm a little slow on the uptake sometimes.

In reply to this comment by lucky760:
Likely cause: You can't channel invoke on your own posts. You have to edit instead.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Hey, what's the invocation? I tried *news on a video and Siftie ignored me.