From you example of going into debt for war sake is a nice comparison. In today's terms we spent 1 trillion on the Bush war and and a fair amount on Obama continuation of the wars. If we were only in 1 - 2 trillion of debt that's one thing but we are hitting 16 Trillion dollars of debt. That is a whole different kind of debt.

Like I said earlier our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.


You basically don't see this as a problem so I ask you when does it become a problem?
>> ^heropsycho:

The government borrowed massive amounts of money to pay for pretty much every war it's been in. By your logic, we shouldn't have fought the Axis Powers in WWII because that would have put the bill on the backs of others to pay.
Just stop, your arguments fail basic historical examples that prove it's overly simplistic and moronic. By your logic, the government should never borrow money. The US debt is a problem, but to never borrow money is utterly ridiculous.
>> ^bobknight33:
Yes I currently paying a loan on a house.
The difference is that I am not putting that bill on the backs of others to pay.
Our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.

>> ^Edgeman2112:
>> ^bobknight33:
Only Ron Paul want to move back to the Gold standard.
The debt ceiling is real. He is wrong. If you borrow more than you take in than you are screwed. We borrow 43 cents of every dollar.

So you don't have a house?

The government borrowed massive amounts of money to pay for pretty much every war it's been in. By your logic, we shouldn't have fought the Axis Powers in WWII because that would have put the bill on the backs of others to pay.

Just stop, your arguments fail basic historical examples that prove it's overly simplistic and moronic. By your logic, the government should never borrow money. The US debt is a problem, but to never borrow money is utterly ridiculous.

>> ^bobknight33:

Yes I currently paying a loan on a house.
The difference is that I am not putting that bill on the backs of others to pay.
Our government has currently cause each of us to incur a bill of 50K per man woman and child or 137K per taxpayer. Who of us can pay that debt back? Not Me and surly not you.

>> ^Edgeman2112:
>> ^bobknight33:
Only Ron Paul want to move back to the Gold standard.
The debt ceiling is real. He is wrong. If you borrow more than you take in than you are screwed. We borrow 43 cents of every dollar.

So you don't have a house?

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

Seems that she makes the opposite point she's trying to argue. The studies show the antidepressants are no better than placebo in mild to moderate depression. Therefore, they don't work, OTHER than functioning as a placebo. Yes, we all know the placebo effect is real, about 20% of people improve with a sugar pill. So, I guess she's arguing that the antidepressant is just a substitute for the sugar pill, and therefore effective in that regard. Why not save expense and side-effects and just give patients the sugar pill instead, when they have mild to moderate depression? Or better yet, prescribe exercise, bright light therapy, nutrition, abstinence from CNS depressants, and healthy sleep habits instead.
The evidence for a physiologic/anatomical cause of the symptoms of depression is overwhelming. The vegetative symptoms of severe depression; generalized anxiety, appetite disturbance and, the hallmark, sleep disturbance, all point to an abnormal "hypervigilant" state probably mediated through the hypothalamic, pituitary, adrenal axis. The genetic predisposition for depression and the evidence that permanent changes in the brain may progress with frequent bouts of severe depression also point to a common physiologic pathway. Having experienced the acute onset of 2 bouts of severe depression, complete with all the vegetative symptoms, I can tell you from personal experience that you KNOW something has changed in the way your brain and body are functioning. It's if an alien has invaded your body, taken control and tucked your old "self" away in a closet somewhere. I couldn't say that any of the antidepressants that I tried had a profound effect on recovery, it was 6 months of hell, and then about 2 years of discomfort before remission in both cases. However, now I think I'm on a combination drug therapy that I feel is more effective in keeping me in remission. Part of the issue may have been that I'm more bipolar with mainly depressive mood, rather than a true unipolar depressive type.

Second plot, again the only "clinically significant difference" was in a part of the plot where there are very few data points. Arguably insufficient data to believe in the model from which you are drawing the conclusion. While there does seem to be a larger difference in this plot among the patients hovering around 24 or 25, the scale on the y axis has changed substantially (been compressed). It isn't clear that difference is "anything to write home about" so to speak.

Okay... I haven't finished the video, but I'll give you a play by play anyway. It's not my field (I study sensory systems) so if there are any clinicians in the audience, please forgive my ignorance.

First plot: The effect she's talking about is an extrapolation from a linear model with presumably assumed uniform variance along the independent axis. If you look at the actual underlying data, presumably notated with open and filled bubbles (no mention of what size means, but probably number of samples) you see that there is a lot of "effect" extrapolated from the model despite very little obvious trend in that part of the data. In fact, there are only two or three open bubbles at all on that part of the chart presumably because it was viewed as unethical to treat severely depressed patients with placebos. Further, there is a huge (relatively speaking) variability in the efficacy among severely depressed patients treated with the drugs. This is a symptom of one of the root problems which is that clinical modeling is typically very weak. The models are often simplified not because it is appropriate or useful, but rather because it is the way that particular researcher knows how to model data.

The a priori linkage between score on some survey and a response to some chemical is, IMO, tenuous at best. Given an argument from correlation that seems to lean heavily on a magic data point or two does little to change it. To give you a sense of how tenuous this data is, consider instead fitting the lines through only the data where the effect is considered "large." As an experiment, pull up the chart, and do a "chi by eye" fit of a line through the white dots, and a line through the dark dots, but only those dots to the right of the "severe depression" threshold line. Notice that the white line would then have a much steeper slope (stronger correlation) and the dark line would have almost no correlation (that data looks pretty isotropic to me).

Alright... that's enough for one comment. Next plot please...

>> ^lampishthing:

I think that's the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.
Atheism: belief that there is (are) no God(s).
Agnostic: lack of belief either way.
"Gnostic" is derived from a Greek word meaning knowing (roughly speaking). Theism and Atheism are Gnostic philosophies as they claim to know that there is a God or not. Agnostic is the inverse: not knowing.

Actually you have that wrong. Atheism is not the belief that there are no gods, it's the lack of belief in a god. It's a small but important point. Agnosticism (as you pointed out) is related to knowledge.

Most "atheists" are agnostics atheists, they don't know if there's a good, but they have seen no evidence for one therefore have no reason to believe in one. Very few atheists (even the "hardcore" like Dawkins) will say they know there's no god, simply that it is extremely improbable.

Theists can fall into either camp. There are many agnostic theists, who can't say for sure that there is a good but choose to believe anyway. People like @shinyblurry would claim to be gnostic theists, in that they claim to know there is a god, and consequently believe.

To me, gnosticism (either theistic or atheistic) is an intellectually dishonest position. There is no real evidence (and personal experience doesn't count, I'm afraid) for this existence of god, but by it's very definition an omnipotent being outside the laws of physics could hide his existence from the universe so it's impossible to disprove using science.

Finally, there is one more position that hasn't been mentioned. It's the third axis on the graph. So far, we have belief (considered opinion based on evidence) and knowledge (evidence available), but there is also desire; whether you want god to exist or not. I don't know the positive term for this, but the negative is usually called an "anti-theist", and can be applied to the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. This is the idea that not only does god probably not exist, it is a good thing that it doesn't. Atheists do not necessarily fall into this camp. Many feel that a benevolent deity would be a nice thing, much like it'd be nice if Santa or the easter bunny existed, but there's simply insufficient evidence for it. Note that anti-theists don't hate theists (other than the ones that any moral person would hate: bigots, child-molesters and so on), they hate the concept of god.

It's even possible to be a theist antitheist ("god's a prick, but he's a powerful prick so I should really obey him") although I'll haven't met any of them. Fictional example would be Riddick

For the record, I am an agnostic atheist anti-theist. I don't know if there's a god, I find it improbable and if he's anything like he's depicted in any of the major religions, I want no part of him.

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

I really enjoyed those Wilson books too. It was a SF subject, but didn't read like SF - maybe because, like you say, he focused more on the characters' reactions than the technology itself. The first one, Spin, is a great "almost end of the world" kind of book.>> ^jonny:

I just started Robert Charles Wilson's Vortex, having recently finished the first two in the series, Spin and Axis. About 2/3 of the way through Spin, I still wasn't sure I liked it. By the end, I was hooked. Wilson presents some substantial new SF ideas (new to me anyway), but he seems to focus a lot more on individual characters' reactions to technology rather than technology itself or it's more universal effects. But there's enough scientific detail to keep this nerd interested anyway. A lot of it comes in short bursts towards the end of the novels with a lot of allusion and hints along the way.

I just started Robert Charles Wilson's Vortex, having recently finished the first two in the series, Spin and Axis. About 2/3 of the way through Spin, I still wasn't sure I liked it. By the end, I was hooked. Wilson presents some substantial new SF ideas (new to me anyway), but he seems to focus a lot more on individual characters' reactions to technology rather than technology itself or it's more universal effects. But there's enough scientific detail to keep this nerd interested anyway. A lot of it comes in short bursts towards the end of the novels with a lot of allusion and hints along the way.

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bikefun, machine, helmet, motorcycle, engineer, 2D, five, axis, HyperMill, Daishin' to 'Daishin Seiki, 5 axis milling machine, milling, aluminum helmet, helmet cnc' - edited by BoneRemake

>> ^eric3579:

dope


Oh yeah... *dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Bike-Fun-Machine-makes-a-helmet

>> ^Skeeve:


..With regards to American profiteering, it really isn't debatable; the US was publicly trading with both the Axis and the Allies until Pearl Harbor and then American businesses found more secretive ways of trading with Germany after. If one believes in nationalism above all else, then this is horrid, but if money is what someone worships, then this is the correct course of action. Either way, the justification of the war doesn't really come into it.


This is where the Bush family made their money and therefore dictated Americas future - and future disaster. You guys who want to overlook rapacious greed and murder in the here and now as merely unfortunate should bear in mind that by relinquishing your right to morally judge and control your gangsters in deference to big ideas about markets, then through the inevitability of exponential inheritance, you also relinquish your right to control your future.

This is EXACTLY the sort of shit the authors of the constitution had seen over and over in Europe and were desperate to avoid. Oh well.

I think that a "just" war is something that can only exist in a historical context. The Second World War was undoubtedly an economic/resource war (with myriad other "causes" piled on top) and the parties entered into it with that in mind. It is only after the dust settles that someone can claim it was justified - as it was in the case of the Second World War with the realization of the scale of Nazi atrocities.

I don't think that means a "just" war doesn't exist, just that nations don't enter into a war for the same reasons they are later justified with.

With regards to American profiteering, it really isn't debatable; the US was publicly trading with both the Axis and the Allies until Pearl Harbor and then American businesses found more secretive ways of trading with Germany after. If one believes in nationalism above all else, then this is horrid, but if money is what someone worships, then this is the correct course of action. Either way, the justification of the war doesn't really come into it.

Look at this clip. The turbine head shouldn't pivot freely on its axis, and if the blades were feathered and locked, yet still spinning, it ought to cause a fuckload of friction and stress on the brakes and the gearbox, doesn't it?

The flaming mixture of oil and lubricant makes for nice special effects though.