*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Incredible-results-of-Deep-Brain-Stimulation-surgery

Does anyone fail to see how exploitable this could be? Hack the sign (whether digital or not, you can find methods for changing the message) to give bad advice to only children (and hobbits).

We cannot set precedents for ad agencies to send divergent messages like this. Change 1 number in the message and then you have a potential abuser that isn't the parent gaining telephone access to YOUR CHILD.

How about instead, we Implant a chip in infants and have it feed whatever messages we do or do not want parents to see. And then change the message when they become adults to decrease the likelihood of abuse. AND NOT TELL ANYONE. I mean, if we're going to mask messages, why not just go all the way.

Protect at any cost. Well, how about kill all humans to protect the planet? Or send messages in the form of muscle stimulating agents to only animals and have them rise up!

Oh I know what needs to be done. We need to create a tentative peace and then force our children to fight to the death for our honor. Awesome idea. You had it all backwards. Abuse creates good warriors.

I cannot figure out what you are trying to debate? That there is no science behind DMT? That there is nothing to DMT? That "spiritual" does not exist? What is your point of this continued conversation? That you are scared of psychedelics? Why do you think such an experience would have been programmed into our head, the most powerful experience a person can have?

I have trouble understanding "spiritual" to be the same as "awesome" or "awe-inspiring", but if thats what you mean by "spiritual", I suppose we agree. I understand "spiritual" to mean "that which concerns the spirits or the spiritual world", ie something supernatural.

I suppose there is little point in continuing this debate, I get a little carried away.. My point ws only that it is unscientific and nonsensical to think that stimulating your brain with chemicals can help you discover some sor of spiritworld or some nonsense like that, the reason I KNOW this, as you put it, is what I've fruitlessly to express over several long comments. Basically, to repeat myself for like the 5th time, it has to do with basic facts of the origin of our brains and so forth, it is now established, beyond any reasonable doubt, that our brains evolved. If you understand what biological evolution is and how it works, you'd know it is the mindless reshuffling of nucleotides acted upon in populations of animals over countless generations, this produces amazing survival machines, and some of them develop brains, and some of those grow big brains.

How do you think DNA evolved over so many years,
DNA probably evolved after RNA, nobody knows exactly how replicating nucleotides started to replicate, it was probably a staggeringly unlikely event, but then there was literally all the time and space in the universe for it to happen..

you ever read Francis Cricks, who helped found DNA, Well, I've read The Double Helix, and I'm currently studying biology and genetics.
what his theory for DNA was? Panspermia. Yeah.
No,
It was speculation, probably tongue-in-cheek that he later regretted. In any case, the argument was based on the fact that the origin of DNA/RNA was an extremely unlikely event, and that if it didn't originate on earth, it could have been brought here from elsewhere. Both options are essentially saying the same thing, that abiogenesis happened and that it later evolved (either here on earth, like most scientist now think, or somewhere else.)

It doesnt really matter whether directed panspermia is true or not, DNA is still strings of molecules that abide by the laws of physics and chemistry. They are not some sort of magical quantum spirit crystals mind-controlled by aliens.
The Universe is a lot trickier than just our basic Science.
Whatever you say boss.

Hurrry, hurry, HURRY! Step right up, Seee the most elusive, the most thrilling, the most stimulating acts of human aberration!!
DELIGHT in the base, wallow in the mundane, thrill to the most death-defying feats of the human condition hitherto unknown to those more fortunate than themselves, HURRY HURRY HURRY!!
Place yourselves, as you gawk and wonder at the depths dredged from the cauldron of the human experience, on a far greater pedestal than that of these lowly cretins, these unfortunates, these blessed creatures placed upon the planet for ALLLL, to enjoy!!?? HURRY, HURRY, HURRY!!

Fucking, chicken-fuckers fucking, fucking chickens....Fuck You

I don't think I've ever seen gracilis muscles in a television commercial before.

As much as these things involuntarily stimulate the amygdala, I'd rather they not be so easily accessible on television. I have concerns about my boys' perspectives and expectations of women becoming perverted.

P.S. If anyone tries that sandwich, let me know how it goes. It looks pretty tasty, and I'm glad they're offering an un-battered, un-fried fish sandwich.

Coolas hell...efficient. A home with that always-on-holiday feel. Grew up in apartments in the south and despise them then moved to San Francisco where apartments are more tastefully designed and in more comely,stimulating surroundings. Soon grew to love our cozy 720 sq ft single room flat, loft bedroom-So much so the floor plan that I incorporated aspects in a small garage apartment designed for myself years later. No Murphy bed though...love those things!

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

Dramatization for the stimulation of imagination

I think it was alluded to in this vid, but not stated outright.
Outgoing personalities do not necessarily equate Extroversion, or leadership roles.

Instead, I have come to an understanding that the polemics of Intro/Extro-version are rooted in WHERE one sources their stimulation from. He stated that Extroverts recharge in the company of others, or via "external sources", whereas Introverts recharge by reaching inward through "processing" ("thinking" itself it too narrow a definition).

So, really, Extroverts "pull in" (from outside) more than they "push out", while Introverts "pull out" (from inside) more than they "push in". IMHO

Ok, I'll bite. I have no issue with the chimpanzees. They are just doing what they do. In the wild they hunt, and they will in captivity given the chance. They also struggle for stimulation in captivity hence the relish with which they approach this situation. It's a game to them, they know no better.

What really irks me about this video is the braying spectators. They way they find it funny that the raccoon is being treated this way. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's OK to take pleasure in the suffering of another animal. They are laughing at an animal being hurt.

The chimps don't understand the situation, but the laughing idiots should. There are funny things in nature and there are horrific things in nature. The chimps are blameless, but that doesn't stop what they're doing from being horrific.

That's what my issue with this video is. By upvoting a video here people are saying 'yes, I enjoyed watching that'. I can't imagine who would enjoy watching this demonstration of the awfulness of people.

>> ^grinter:

So let's mix some anti-diuretic hormone stimulators in with our Red Bull and vodka (or espresso and Drambuie, depending on how dandy we are feeling).


Oh man, WHAT!?...you'd stay hammered for hours!!
Oh yeah, and yer pee only looks like Tropicana the next day if you STOP drinking coffee and alcohol!!
My pees hardly ever school bus, usually a subtle Naples yellow when not as clear as reversed-osmosissificated and carbon filtered...

So let's mix some anti-diuretic hormone stimulators in with our Red Bull and vodka (or espresso and Drambuie, depending on how dandy we are feeling).

>> ^jimnms:

Caffeine is not a diuretic.

“In the 10 studies reviewed, consumption of a caffeinated beverage resulted in 0 to 84 percent retention of the initial volume ingested, whereas consumption of water resulted in 0 to 81 percent retention.”
Another study, in the same journal in 2005, involved scientists following 59 active adults over 11 days while controlling their caffeine intake. They were given caffeine in capsule form on some days and on other days were given a placebo. Researchers found no significant differences in levels of excreted electrolytes or urine volume. [source]

My favorite of the list is Greatbatch, and his story really gets to the value of inspiration and curiousity as an inventor. He was just making a device to record heart beats, and put in an incorrect resistor for his circuit, resulting in a oscillating blip in his recordings. Instead of going 'fuck! I made the goddamn thing wrong! So I threw it on the grooooound!' No he said, 'Woah, thats neat, I have sort-of a built-in time guage that is very regular in my recordings, and can see how irregular the heart beat is ... wait a minute...', and then proceeded to work on the completely crazy idea of an implantable, miniature device to electrically stimulating the heart to keep it beating evenly as people just walked around.

I'd argue that its basically impossible to accidentally invent something. You have to be bright enough to recognize something interesting, and curious enough to follow it off in the direction it leads.

Thank you QM for that thoughtful reply.

It just seems that the imbalance right now is in demand, not the availability of capitol to invest.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Your logic isn't flawed per se, just incomplete.
In an unstable environment like the one created by Obama and his ilk, no sane wealthy person is going to expand businesses or invest.
Lower tax rates mean more investing and more lending to entrepreneurs. It also means less "hoarding" by the wealthy, who in an electronic world can transfer monies rapidly and keep them parked elsewhere.
The idea is that even though the tax rate is lower, there is more economic activity, and thus greater revenue.
Taxation is only half of the equation, the other is spending. Government spending will certainly not stop under a Romney Administration; a continuing taxocrat-majority Congress means spending will barely slow down.

Outrage over the Ryan proposal is selective at best. His Earness has already screwed the middle-class. Here are the new taxes the middle class will be paying for Obamacare. The ink is already dry.
>> ^TheFreak:
Give me $2500 over a year and it will all be spent on household expenses in the bat of an eye, directly into the economy. Give $250,000 to a millionaire and what exactly is it going to do? How is that money going to stimulate the economy better than the millions they're already hoarding?
Someone give me a coherent argument for how an extra fraction of wealth is going to encourage these people to invest and grow anything. Show me the flaw in my logic.