Rabbit Foot Blues - Blind Lemon Jefferson

My Babe - Lightnin' Hopkins

Third Street's Going Down - Peetie Wheatstraw

Southern Can Mama - Blind Willie McTell

61 Highway - Mississippi Fred McDowell

The Little Red Caboose - Henry Thomas

Good Gravy - Sonny Boy Williamson

Bad Feelin' Blues - Arthur "Blind" Blake

Milkcow Scale Blues (v. 2) - Robert Johnson

Sleepy Man Blues - Bukka White

All I got on here is blues, at the moment.. really need to update the library.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'donaldson, hopkins, burt munro, 2005' to 'donaldson, hopkins, burt munro, 2005, motorcycle' - edited by therealblankman

I completely identify with this. Except instead of attending Johns Hopkins I went to the local community college, and instead of networking I huffed paint.

It's like there's another me out there!

..and for those who are interested..
The "Good Friday Experiment" produced very similar results:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/mushrooms/mushrooms_journal2.shtml

did anyone notice "John Hopkin's coutch"?

Tags for this video have been changed from '1980, john, hurt, anthony, hopkins, joseph, merrick, black, white' to '1980, john hurt, anthony hopkins, john merrick, black, white, david lynch' - edited by kronosposeidon

him name is Hopkin Greentennisplayer.

Bah! just saw your comment, great stuff! There used to be a radio station that would play this stuff when I was a kid; I would fall asleep to this almost every night. ahhh memories thanks for the suggestion!

In reply to this comment by swampgirl:
McConrad, you'd like Sylvie Vartan. http://www.videosift.com/search?q=sylvie+vartan

I'm quite glad to see stuff like this on the sift (and a bit impressed that CNN would do a story on this, albeit that the Hopkins study was published way back in 2005. Way to be current!).

Incidentally, it's due to experiences like the ones described here -- and other, similar non-drug induced experiences -- that had initially got me interested in the field of transpersonal psychology. I am close to completing my Ph.D. in this discipline and also work for the professional Association.

Folks who are interested in studies like these, may also want to visit the good people over at MAPS.

Agreed on it needs to be legalized at least off of schedule 1 so we can regulate rather than pretend we can make it go away like we do now. Can't even do many types of research now since we can't "distribute" so can't do controlled studies.

On your second point, Snap right back at ya In "MEMORY, ATTENTION, AND COGNITIVE FUNCTION" as you put it there's a small catch involved. Similar to the way the risk of psychotic disorders is badly overstated (almost nothing to a hair over almost nothing) this is overstated and badly as well. The effects are mostly WHILE intoxicated, for casual use that doesn't extend much if at all past that. You wouldn't know that from the scare stories though. I'll offer you some sources for further research if you'd care to follow up on it and a decent source for a bunch more.

"The results of our meta-analytic study failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated. For six of the eight neurocognitive ability areas that were surveyed. the confidence intervals for the average effect sizes across studies overlapped zero in each instance, indicating that the effect size could not be distinguished from zero. The two exceptions were in the domains of learning and forgetting."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 686.

"In conclusion, our meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to address the question of longer term neurocognitive disturbance in moderate and heavy cannabis users has failed to demonstrate a substantial, systematic, and detrimental effect of cannabis use on neuropsychological performance. It was surprising to find such few and small effects given that most of the potential biases inherent in our analyses actually increased the likelihood of finding a cannabis effect."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 687.

"Nevertheless, when considering all 15 studies (i.e., those that met both strict and more relaxed criteria) we only noted that regular cannabis users performed worse on memory tests, but that the magnitude of the effect was very small. The small magnitude of effect sizes from observations of chronic users of cannabis suggests that cannabis compounds, if found to have therapeutic value, should have a good margin of safety from a neurocognitive standpoint under the more limited conditions of exposure that would likely obtain in a medical setting."

Source: Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, pp. 687-8.

A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.

Source: Constantine G. Lyketsos, Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony. (1999). "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 149, No. 9.

"Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 887.

# "Although the heavy current users experienced a decrease in IQ score, their scores were still above average at the young adult assessment (mean 105.1). If we had not assessed preteen IQ, these subjects would have appeared to be functioning normally. Only with knowledge of the change in IQ score does the negative impact of current heavy use become apparent."

Source: Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 890.

Source for those and more, lots of sourced detail which includes perspective rather than tossing bold claims out without that perspective, can be found at the following. Yes, it includes both the good and the bad and the root site for that page covers medical marijuana and other drugs as well.http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.htm

The problem in part is that people use pot (and other drugs) sometimes to hide from life or to make themselves feel better about their failures and we try to assume the pot caused the problem rather than the problem caused them to find a way to make themselves feel better, in this case with pot. Association doesn't automatically mean cause and effect. It's not brain food, but it's not all that dangerous in casual use either. Even with heavy use function tends to drift back to the baseline with time, you just have to quit abusing. Better to look for the reasons for abuse than to blame the substance which isn't all that dangerous or toxic in itself.

I once toured the science institute in Baltimore (it is at John's Hopkins) as a friend worked there. I happened to be there right around when the comet struck Jupiter. I saw some absolutely beautiful photographs of the event.

In answer to bigbikeman's question... I think the answer is rather straight forward. Profits. War/Oil-mongers in the government want profits. They pursue those profits at the expense of the taxpayer. We as taxpayers foot the bill for their profiteering. Is it cool? No. Is it productive? No, not for humanity. But it sure has heck profits.

The powermongers which run governments, not only the US government, seek short term gains at the expense on long term benefits to humanity.

Same old crap as seen throughout history.

Occasionally we get lucky and something good comes out of it. If only we could be more consistent about it.

Sorry to pop the bubble here, but as a "World First" this has already been done, as far back as 2000 [Dr. William Dobelle]. There are many institutions working on this approach to making a prosthetic ocular device.

This one's approach is called a Retinal Implant, but the Dobelle approach (and many others) use a direct Neural Implant (complete with head-socket). They tested the implants/sockets on 9 individuals since the early 1980's and found little to no infection or contra-indications. It afforded a vision of 20/200 in the initial trials and improved up to 20/80 in the later trials. This later approach requires an external camera (likely mounted to a pair of glasses). I believe you can still get this operation done in Portugal.

The former approach of Retinal Implant (JUST like they show here) has been functioning by the Argus Group (USC & John Hopkins) since 2002 and is already approved by the FDA for a second generation trial of 60 individuals.

What puzzles me is why we hear so little about these amazing breakthroughs (years after the fact) and are instead so "up" on 'popular' news to the minute.

Via Neatorama:

Surprise! There's a Third YouTube Co-Founder

Before there was YouTube, there was ... a dating site called Tune In Hook Up?! Yes, that was the first version of YouTube that completely failed (Source: article by Jim Hopkins at USA Today, from where I shamelessly, um, co-opted the heading).

The YouTube we all know and love got started when former Paypal employees Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim wanted to share some videos from a dinner party only to realize that the video clip was too huge for email. Posting the video online wasn't easy either - since video websites back then accept some but not all video clip formats.

So the trio went to create YouTube in 2005 - and a little over a year later, the website streamed 100 million videos per day and got 70,000 videos uploaded per day (roughly 1 per second). It was the fastest growing website in the history of the Internet. It was estimated that in 2007, YouTube consumed as much bandwidth as the entire Internet in 2000!

Hurley and Chen sold the company to Google for a cool $1.65 billion ... so what happened to Jawed? He left active role at the company to be a graduate student in computer science before it was sold (but he didn't leave empty handed - Jawed got about $64 million in stocks when YouTube was acquired by Google).

Oh, and of course: the first video clip on YouTube was uploaded at 8:27 pm on Saturday April 23rd, 2005. It was of Jawed himself (shot by Yakov Lapitsky) at the San Diego Zoo.

^ Reminds, yes, but is it actually such a film, Dag? There was a reason Stone waited for Nixon's death to make his film of the same name. When the subject of a bio-flick is still alive I think the filmmaker would be a bit more gracious, even subconsciously, than he normally would. Bush doesn't deserve such a courtesy.

Oh, and was there a man on earth who looked less like Nixon than Anthony Hopkins? It's all about the performance, baby! So we'll see.

Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are usually great in whatever they do, and agreed Keanu Reeves fucked things up with his dodgy performance. In my opinion this film could have been miles better, Winona Ryder was crappy in it too. Having said that, it's still worth watching

Keannu Reaves was the only thing I had a problem with in the film. Don't mind the guy, it's just that playing a Brit was not something he could pull off.

Gary Oldman was brilliant as Dracula, though. So was Hopkins for Van Helsing.