Thursday, February 28, 2008
britney spears
I feel bad for her, all those people who pay attention to her and yet no one who cares.
damn rats
How do you get feedback from doing experiments on rats? You study their behavior. How do you know what that behavior means? You fit it into whatever experiment you are doing.
stupid
Why hasn't anyone noticed damage to this part of the brain(amygdala) before?
"Crucially, these same rats also were significantly more sensitive to cocaine after just one exposure. And rats given repeated cocaine injections later showed even stronger expressions of the enduring changes in behavior – suggesting an overall hypersensitivity to the addictive process."
What about the rats who didn't have the surgery done? And how do you tell the behavior of a rat? What are the specifics? How do you tell if a rat is sensitive to cocaine after one exposure? Did you offer it cocaine in its water bowl as a test to see if it would go after it more than regular water?
stupid
Why hasn't anyone noticed damage to this part of the brain(amygdala) before?
"Crucially, these same rats also were significantly more sensitive to cocaine after just one exposure. And rats given repeated cocaine injections later showed even stronger expressions of the enduring changes in behavior – suggesting an overall hypersensitivity to the addictive process."
What about the rats who didn't have the surgery done? And how do you tell the behavior of a rat? What are the specifics? How do you tell if a rat is sensitive to cocaine after one exposure? Did you offer it cocaine in its water bowl as a test to see if it would go after it more than regular water?
teen drinking
So, some doctors seem to think that when you start drinking as a teen that leads to later problems in life. Well, do they take into account that all people drink at sometime? Where are the numbers based on people that started drinking later in life? I don't think this is just an underage drinking problem, I think that drinking is the problem no matter what your age.
college
So, there seems to be an understanding that the students must pay whatever the college wants, and satisfy whatever requirements that the college wants, to be able to enroll in their college.
So let me get this straight. This is a capitalist society. And the consumer, the student, must pay whatever the provider wants. This goes against supply and demand. The consumer, student, should pay whatever they think is worthy of what they are getting, not paying what they think the provider should be payed. There is a local college nearby that is requiring the use of Iphones. Why should you pay the price of the iPHONE for the privilege of paying them for their education??
One day the youth will realize this. Probably when all their parents stop paying for their education. But until then my cause is useless.
So let me get this straight. This is a capitalist society. And the consumer, the student, must pay whatever the provider wants. This goes against supply and demand. The consumer, student, should pay whatever they think is worthy of what they are getting, not paying what they think the provider should be payed. There is a local college nearby that is requiring the use of Iphones. Why should you pay the price of the iPHONE for the privilege of paying them for their education??
One day the youth will realize this. Probably when all their parents stop paying for their education. But until then my cause is useless.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
facebook decline?
I don't know if the rumors are true or not because its so hard to get the truth.
According to this article, they only track users not profiles, and from what I can find the drop was only reported in the amount of UK visitors no where else.
So does this mean facebook is on the decline. I'd say two things to that. First, there is no basis for comparison on this, there is no precedent. Myspace doesn't count, for the simple reason that the twos structures are so different from each other. But there is nothing worthy to compare this too. Then there is this moron who wants to compare how the fact that facebook made it easier to delete your account means its going to fail just like what happened with aol. I'm sorry but to even put AOL and facebook in the same article is somewhat an indicator of a lack of common sense. AOL was a crappy service provider that no one really liked, but at the time there were no other real options. Facebook has stood out from the multitude already so they got something that people want. But on the other hand there is no such thing as unlimited growth. The numbers have to level off at somepoint, so even if there was a decrease in numbers, which facebook denies, that is by no means a clear indication of upcoming doom.
According to this article, they only track users not profiles, and from what I can find the drop was only reported in the amount of UK visitors no where else.
So does this mean facebook is on the decline. I'd say two things to that. First, there is no basis for comparison on this, there is no precedent. Myspace doesn't count, for the simple reason that the twos structures are so different from each other. But there is nothing worthy to compare this too. Then there is this moron who wants to compare how the fact that facebook made it easier to delete your account means its going to fail just like what happened with aol. I'm sorry but to even put AOL and facebook in the same article is somewhat an indicator of a lack of common sense. AOL was a crappy service provider that no one really liked, but at the time there were no other real options. Facebook has stood out from the multitude already so they got something that people want. But on the other hand there is no such thing as unlimited growth. The numbers have to level off at somepoint, so even if there was a decrease in numbers, which facebook denies, that is by no means a clear indication of upcoming doom.
nuclear explosion
if one would've happened or maybe even a meltdown this would have been a bigger story
blackouts
but of course if no one dies, then it isn't news
blackouts
but of course if no one dies, then it isn't news
idiots
I thought everyone knew there is nothing like a war to boost the economy.
Apparently the Democrats didn't get the message.
If they think our economy is bad now, lets see what happens when they get their wish granted.
Also, so they are no longer against war in general, their just against the war in Iraq, "In addition the Democrats contend that the war against terrorism should be waged primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq." So somehow they magically know how to do something thats never been done before. I'm not for or against the war in Iraq really, but I want to know how the Democrats think they can put a location on something that by default, has no central location. If terrorists did have one set country to be in I think this whole war on terror would've gone a lot simpler don't you.
And then in the brilliance that only comes to people lacking all commonsense. They decide to spend $20 million to highlight the costs of the war. How does spending money to illustrate the fact that you're spending money work? And what does it really accomplish?
The real problem is they lack backbone. I am of the opinion that if the country doesn't finish what it started, then all those people that died, and all that money spent, really would have all been in vain. But while they admit there have been security gains, they say they are only temporary. So you're saying the military did something right, but since somehow you know the future of all things, the fact that we've accomplished something means nothing because you know its only temporary. How does that work?
Oh and I love this brilliant quote, which goes back to the economy again.
“And now with the economy becoming such a central issue — $190 billion a year — why are we spending there instead of here?"
I bet if you took a list and broke down the spending, you'd find that the majority goes through the US in some form before being spent elsewhere.
Apparently the Democrats didn't get the message.
If they think our economy is bad now, lets see what happens when they get their wish granted.
Also, so they are no longer against war in general, their just against the war in Iraq, "In addition the Democrats contend that the war against terrorism should be waged primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq." So somehow they magically know how to do something thats never been done before. I'm not for or against the war in Iraq really, but I want to know how the Democrats think they can put a location on something that by default, has no central location. If terrorists did have one set country to be in I think this whole war on terror would've gone a lot simpler don't you.
And then in the brilliance that only comes to people lacking all commonsense. They decide to spend $20 million to highlight the costs of the war. How does spending money to illustrate the fact that you're spending money work? And what does it really accomplish?
The real problem is they lack backbone. I am of the opinion that if the country doesn't finish what it started, then all those people that died, and all that money spent, really would have all been in vain. But while they admit there have been security gains, they say they are only temporary. So you're saying the military did something right, but since somehow you know the future of all things, the fact that we've accomplished something means nothing because you know its only temporary. How does that work?
Oh and I love this brilliant quote, which goes back to the economy again.
“And now with the economy becoming such a central issue — $190 billion a year — why are we spending there instead of here?"
I bet if you took a list and broke down the spending, you'd find that the majority goes through the US in some form before being spent elsewhere.
unfair
Does anyone besides me ever stop to think that its unfair for people under the age of 18 to be tried as adults. Obviously I'm not, but you'd think it'd be a bigger issue.
So you take someone thats lets say 14 years old. Lets say they kill someone. Lets say they are fully knowledgeable of their actions, even though there is no real scientific way to prove that, but lets say for the sake of the example that they are. So the court decides they should be considered an adult.
But wait a second. If they're an adult, why can't they drive? Why can't they vote? Why must they be in the charge of someone over the age of 18? I think the cruel and unusual punishment thing applies to this. Wouldn't you say its cruel for someone to have to face the consequences of being something, while getting none of the benefits of said something. It's like soldiers not being able to drink. If they are able to serve in the Army, I say they should be allowed to drink legally. Thats just my opinion. But its the same principle. You can't have some get punished according to standards of another group, when in all other areas, they are not a part of that group
So you take someone thats lets say 14 years old. Lets say they kill someone. Lets say they are fully knowledgeable of their actions, even though there is no real scientific way to prove that, but lets say for the sake of the example that they are. So the court decides they should be considered an adult.
But wait a second. If they're an adult, why can't they drive? Why can't they vote? Why must they be in the charge of someone over the age of 18? I think the cruel and unusual punishment thing applies to this. Wouldn't you say its cruel for someone to have to face the consequences of being something, while getting none of the benefits of said something. It's like soldiers not being able to drink. If they are able to serve in the Army, I say they should be allowed to drink legally. Thats just my opinion. But its the same principle. You can't have some get punished according to standards of another group, when in all other areas, they are not a part of that group
big untold story
time for a change of pace. and time to air my opinions upon the world.
first off...
not all cracked up to be
So the British health care system is free right. But apparently it won't help you save your life in some cases. This is ridiculous thought it would've gotten more attention due to Sicko but I guess thats the way it goes
first off...
not all cracked up to be
So the British health care system is free right. But apparently it won't help you save your life in some cases. This is ridiculous thought it would've gotten more attention due to Sicko but I guess thats the way it goes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
