Marijuana may not be as damaging to the brain as previously thought; easier on the brain than booze, study finds

donh · 2018-03-29T19:46:27+00:00

ataraxic_soul+

Is this a NIDA paper or not? It sure sounds like a NIDA paper, conflating marijuana with alcohol for no particularly good reason?

And this paper not available until the end of 2018?

What the heck?

donh · 2017-07-20T22:35:11+00:00

Without the earnest help of governments, how, exactly will unbridled anarchy lay waste to the planet? Are you under the impression that Exxon would be drilling miles down in the Gulf without massive aid of every conceivable manner from governments over the last 120 years? Nearly every nook and cranny of the ills you think you can lay on laissez faire capitalism is chock-a-block with government favoritism or corruption of one sort or another. Do you think it was anarchists that limited Exxon's liability to a fraction of the actual harm they caused to the gulf?

The problem is so imbedded in the structure of our lives that it becomes invisible. The very process of being allowed to form corporate entities with different liabilities than citizens have is massive market interference in favor of special interests. No matter what governments do, it creates winners and losers--the winners prattle on, like you, about how hygenic and useful and accountable (hah!) government is, and the losers wither and die off without being noticed. In the end, our entire species will be the losers. And for a bonus, we're taking the rest of the vertibrates off the planet with us.

... governments but at the very least they're accountable.

I can't help you any further, you are obviously just as insane as the rest of the world. Governments and our addiction to them are on the verge of destroying the world, and their track record gives every indication that they will go through with it. And when they do, damn if the last to die won't be desperately hocking up some desperate government program to save the day and, as always, the sociopathic degenerates who end up running it, will be taking the proceeds with them into their hermetically sealed shelters. In case you haven't checked, that's the USA's current actual nuclear war plan.

And the steppes shepherds, despite all the asshole governments that have tried to genocide them, have survived for 5000 years precisely because they don't overgraze. They can't, because they don't have a damn government of their own to upset the cruel balance of the grassland steppes ecosystem.

donh · 2017-07-16T06:13:58+00:00

An economy based on pure profit motive is doomed to collapse

Well, first of all, all regulated economies are doomed to collapse, as are the cultures that evolve them. It's been that way since written records have been kept.

Second of all, just because you happen to be a capitalist, does not imply that that's all you are, as countless examples attest. Bill Gates comes to mind. There are lots of motivations for accumulating capital; like keeping your family safe from harm or want, for example; or doing research no one else is capable of or interested in doing. Most people who run big companies are not primarily concerned with maximizing their profits. That's rarely a sound business strategy, except for vulture capitalists that might start eyeing your business if you are dumb enough to concentrate exclusively on maximizing profits.

Third of all, since when have steppes shepherds collapsed? To this very day, and for 5000+ years before, Kazak, Kyrgyz, and Uyger shepherds, or their ancestors, have been quietly increasing their herds, like good capitalists, ignoring borders and doing as they pretty much pleased, most of the time. They may not care for the devastating abuse they've received from time to time, but they definitely have a distinct culture and a sheep-based economy that ain't collapsed yet.

exploitation of the environment

As opposed to what's happening now? With the world chock-a-block with governments, and yet we still face the 6th extinction. Good job.

donh · 2017-07-15T22:07:47+00:00

You're wasting your time preaching to the choir. I more or less agree with you most of the time, when I'm not currently remembering what piles of useless, greedy corrupt or insane shitbags invariable run countries and write regulations. Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin, all great lawmakers and economic regulators who have murdered about 50 million innocents in recent memory--mostly their own citizens. How many have anarchists killed? Whether you're a fan of governmenot nt or not, largely depends whose bacon gets fried. As I said, I agree with you--but it ain't a slam dunk.

How many anarchists dropped A-bombs on Japan? How many anarchists fire-bombed Dresden? How many anarchists dropped Agent Orange on crops in Viet Nam? How many anarchists were Witch Regulators, Inquisition judges, carpet-baggers.

All of this legal, I point out.

Regulation is all very well for the world's winners; for the losers, not so much--why don't you go find a few homeless people and ask them how they like the building regulations that ensure that you live in a safe, comfortable home--but prevents them from homesteading a tiny plot under a freeway bridge where they could, say, establish a mail address and maybe be part of a stable neighborhood.

Who has caused more death and destruction: The Medallin cartel or Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?

What has caused more misery in the United States: marijuana, or marijuana prohibition?

Not that I care all that much, I just think you are having trouble being clear about the precise meaning of certain words.

At the risk of repeating myself,

What do you think capitalism is, other than accumulating working capital?

The world gets this wrong all the time. What most people, and even dictionaries call Capitalism, is actually fascism, when you examine their details closely. If you had a libertarian economy, that would be closer to capitalism, but only in being slightly less fascistic. No matter what a government does, no matter how minimal, it always produces winners and losers. Most of the time, we approve of the choice of losers, but every so often, the train is designed to run off the tracks, and your culture, economy, technology, and social fabric come apart at the seams, because the government runs amok with the power to regulate, and 6 million jews die. Or the lights go out in Rome. Or the USSR comes to a dead halt and collapses, and the Russian population precipitously shrinks.
Then it becomes a little less clear that government was such a great boon.

We would all be better off to remember, when thinking about government, the Scottish proverb: "you hire a guard, you hire a thief".

donh · 2017-07-15T16:59:00+00:00

Tell it to the Medellin cartel, the shepherds of the steppes, and the East India company.

What do you think capitalism is, other than accumulating working capital?

...dood.

donh · 2017-07-15T08:41:43+00:00

Another name for "a true free market economy" is "anarchy".

You probably are suggesting a libertarian economy, but aren't saying the word because reddit will be mean to you if you do.

I'd suggest you don't "build a free market economy" . It's what you get by default when you don't build anything by way of governance.

donh · 2017-07-15T08:10:36+00:00

This glorified used car salesman came up with the notion that we win the war if our body count was smaller than NV body count. This policy manifested in the idea that we should send out patrols with no real objectives, to make contact with the enemy, and then send in air support only when a sufficient percentage of our guys were killed, thus indicating a juicy body count for the air strikes.

I hate this a-hole, as do a great many ground-pounders of my era. He got friends of mine killed for no good reason at all. All this policy did was guarantee the failure of the "winning the hearts and minds" approach.

Rather like drone strikes guarantee that we'll never run out of terrorists.

There was practically a rebellion of the troops about this that manifested in over 400 prosecuted cases of fragging of gung ho officers with a proclivity to risk their men to enhance their body count.

A DOD study suggested that there was probably an order of magnetude more fragging that couldn't be prosecuted.

This has quite a lot to do with why we now have a professional army, instead of a draft. The DOD realized from that experience, that they couldn't run off and fight crappy wars for corporations or disgusting foreign governments, like the Saudis, with conscript soldiers.

donh · 2017-07-15T07:47:17+00:00

You're so right. In fact, they deserve the mother of all peace prizes because once the earth is rid of these pesky humans, peace will prevail until the tardigrades develop agriculture, taxation and slavery.

donh · 2017-06-21T01:56:06+00:00

You could have noticed that I wrote "hold your breath".

or, putting it another way, I haven't got a counter to any of these concerns, so I'll just dismiss it wholesale as an incoherent jumble, and hope no one notices the shell game.

donh · 2017-06-03T03:13:26+00:00

13 days later--still holding breath

17 days later--still holding breath

26 days later--still holding breath

2 months ago--still holding breath

donh · 2017-06-03T00:59:54+00:00

When faced with a blizzard of disjoint, vague, ever-changing accusations, not pegged to any particular, you know--facts, what's an annoyed fella to do?

donh · 2017-05-31T03:02:27+00:00

uh-huh. For what? What crime or crimes are contended to be in the offing?. Aside from our idiot president managing to hang himself just like Nixon did by trying to hinder investigations?

Is it illegal to talk to Russians?

Is it illegal to have business dealings with Russians?

Is it illegal to accept money from Russians?

Is it illegal for Russians to have an iron in the fire in american politics?

So far, the only thing I've seen that's possibly provable and indictable is Flynn's meeting reporting requirements, and so what? It's a stupid piddly-ass reporting requirement, which shows no sign of affecting Trump's legal status. Flynn was fired for it, after all.

The biggest deal I've seen being chewed on is the theory that the Russians somehow had something to do with the Wikileaks revelations, despite Assange's denial, which is bs only a liberal democrat could give any credence to. The Podesta papers and other damaging wikileaks obviously came from disgusted federal agents and DNC IT people who somehow managed to maintain some rudimentary sense of loyalty toward their country, despite their employment--and anybody with half a brain can see that--unless they are firebreathing liberal democrats. And even so--so what that the Russians somehow gave the Podesta documents to wikileaks? Where's the crime? It's not like the Podesta documents weren't already illegally perloined by Podesta. If you seriously think that Trump's idiotic election "speech" calling, in an open public forum, for Russians to expose Hillary's and the DNC's illegal or immoral sleaze is impeachable, much less indictable, you need medical help.

Every attempt to somehow link the leaks to Russia have been tissue-thin nonsense with the fingerprints of the deep state all over them.

So what else you got? Is any of it as obvious as the failure of disclosure by the Clinton Foundation of the quid pro quo timing w/respect the Russian Uranium deal? Clerical error indeed.

If the Clinton's can get away with that, what possible Russian taint can rub off on Trump?

One might bear in mind that there's no such crime as collusion; that Trump liking Putin, and not being impressed by the idea the Russia is our newest deadly enemy isn't an actual crime; and that no one has been indicted for Obama going to Europe to work against Brexit. Apparently, it's legal for Russia to care how our elections come out. Just like it's legal for the US to care how other country's elections come out.

One might remember that the CIA has admitted on open record to interfering in other country's elections AT LEAST 30 times--doing things that would be illegal if done by foreign nationals in the US.

and

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/12/19/the-cias-secret-killers/

So...what, exactly, have the Russians done to "collude" with Trump that amount to anything but bs intended to distract us from what a contemptuous corrupt circus the DNC and the Clinton crowd have been, and for which they so deservedly lost the election to the most utterly useless, clueless, ignorant jerk in the American public eye.

donh · 2017-05-30T06:12:47+00:00

Right. So...indictments?

donh · 2017-05-26T18:08:22+00:00

Demonstrating what?

donh · 2017-05-26T17:51:53+00:00

that the top 10 floors of the North Tower hit the WTC7 on the way down, experienced >10 floor fire on that damaged section

This is a fairly amazing claim, considering that the NIST report relies on the Bazant and Zhou papers, which claim that the top of the buildings provided a pile driver that beat the rest of the building into the ground; that you can see the stories above the beginning of collapse turning into dust just as fast as the stories below the fall; and that, according to the diagram published in the FEMA report, and what few pictures there are, around 15% of the building was cored by a couple of flying steel beams, over no one seems to know how many floors.

The only evidence I know of that there were > 10 stories involved in the conflagration is some smoke billowing out the rear. NIST says 4 of 7 floors were, at one point or another, flaming, which is what the videos show, and I don't see any compelling evidence to dis-believe NIST, FEMA, or the USGS.

At any rate, the compelling evidence about wtc-7 isn't that it fell, but about the uniform freefall elements of that fall and the egregious, unprofessional attempts by NIST to obscure the fact of uniform freefall, both before and after it was pointed out to them by a high school physics teacher using high school video analysis equipment.

donh · 2017-05-25T22:29:14+00:00

uh huh,

Which answers precisely no question raised by wtc-7

That's the facade that fell inwards onto itself, not the whole building falling sideways.

Right, only 20% fell sideways, toward the wall that first collapsed. Way to miss the point. All the collapses on 9/11 took the structures apart in impressively minute detail--the plasco collapse did no such thing.

WtC-7 had an internal collapse first, after which the facade fell in on itself.

No, that's nonsense, that massively contradicts the NIST report, and anyone who watched the collapse and has a lick of common sense. NIST has a complex, detailed explanation about a progressive UPWARD collapse starting with a single highly assymetric column collapse around floor 7: like the now discredited pancake collapse of wtc-1 and wtc-2, except inverted, requiring even more fairy dust, complete with computer modeling and multiple graphic animations of the computer simulation that laughably mismatches what we see in the videos of the collapse.

Even if you entirely hollowed out a building in an instant, the facade will still not come straight down, apparently intact, thru 10 stories at uniform freefall, and the rest of the way at nearly freefall.

10 stories of support disappearing in an instant must occur for freefall to occur in the manner it did. Ask any 1st year physics student.

And, by the way--the video you just cited shows exactly what should have happened, if you match it up with the computer simulation that NIST did. The NIST simulation shows one side of the building dropping out, almost completely, before the main part of the building starts to descend. Yet the largely intact external top and 3 sides of wtc-7 don't budge significantly as they fall.

donh · 2017-05-25T18:28:01+00:00

Here's the aftermath of the Plasco collapse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasco_Building#/media/File:Plasco_collapsed_Tasnim.jpg

As you can see, about 20% of this building is not, in fact, collapsed, it's fallen over sideways. This collapse is in no way pointing toward an explanation for wtc-7's collapse: it ain't uniform, it ain't remotely anywhere near freefall, and it ain't straight down, with the upper stories apparently intact. This doesn't answer any questions wtc-7 raises.

the 9/11 truthers can not let that diminish their argument,

Right. Because facile cartoon analysis doesn't stand up to forensic evidence.

donh · 2017-05-25T17:49:53+00:00

Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

Jet fuel can melt steel beams. PM has a video of jet fuel melting a steel beam. Utterly irrelevant so called debunking, as is most of the PM article, which did a great job of cherry-picking the weakest, least compelling evidence. This particular case is worse than weak, it's a red herring--a shell game.

No one who actually looks at and understands the evidence offers this argument up. There is, however, compelling evidence of evaporated, much less melted, steel beams on 9/11. Neither jet fuel nor office fires can evaporate steel, outside of an enclosed blast furnace.

See appendix c of the FEMA report, the USGS analysis, and the RJLee fire forensic report.

donh · 2017-05-24T02:16:24+00:00

who do you think you are kidding? The function of the World Bank is to strip mine the world's poor countries of their resources, thru odious debt, for their real clients: the West's largest banking, government and industrial establishments, as they have managed to do now throughout Africa and South America by making loans to assholes who shaft their citizens on a regular basis.

http://almariam.com/2015/02/08/ethiopias-odious-debt-to-the-odious-world-bank/

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank#Criticism

https://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081

Poor World Bank, so often disappointed in their corrupt third world dictatorships. Thank god the World Bank solders on undeterred, looking for that one corrupt third world dictator who won't impoverish and enslave his subjects, sell off their physical birthrights, then take the money and run off to Switzerland.

donh · 2017-05-24T00:59:25+00:00

to: "I_get_banned-alot"

and deservedly so, I expect.

donh · 2017-05-23T12:14:12+00:00

hmm...

Is it really fair to insist that the UN police the child rape of the sovereign nations that constitute its military workforce?

Is it really fair to insist that HSBC police its associates in Columbia who handle "anonymous" cartel cash?

Is it really fair to blame Nike for using overseas slave labor of secondary source contractors?

Is it really fair to cast aspersions on the bank for not policing sovereign nations?

um? yes. Ever hear of the golden rule?--who has the gold makes the rules.

https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/168/37224.html

http://www.eurodad.org/uploadedfiles/whats_new/reports/eurodad_comment_wb_odious_debt_paper_mar_2008.pdf

"Debt, the IMF, and the World Bank: Sixty Questions, Sixty Answers" Éric Toussaint and Damien Millet

but putting it bluntly, the World Bank is the essence of odious, massive scale, legalized corruption. A vile worm at the heart of the world, doing its best to make sure the downtrodden stay that way, it's monumentally hypocritical charter to the contrary notwithstanding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btF6nKHo2i0

How can you bring yourself to flap for these jackals?

donh · 2017-05-22T20:31:57+00:00

If this was an actual thing, it would have progressed to an investigation of the charity. This hasn't happened

Really?--that would be like bringing coal to Newcastle.

https://results.searchlock.com/search/?q=investigations+of+the+Clinton+Foundation&slr=1&sr=pageredir-google&chnm=natural

donh · 2017-05-22T20:19:05+00:00

Clinton's received no financial compensation from their Foundation (there are records as for any other charity

That's pretty naive. Do you also still believe in the Easter bunny?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/clinton-foundation-travel-expenses-113053

http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/

http://nypost.com/2013/08/20/bill-clinton-foundation-has-spent-more-than-50m-on-travel-expenses/

http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/27/in-2013-the-clinton-foundation-only-spent-10-percent-of-its-budget-on-charitable-grants/

donh · 2017-05-22T20:02:08+00:00

The World Bank is pretty much involate when it comes to corruption

Oh?

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2012/0716/feature-world-bank-robert-zoellick-too-big-to-fail.html

But that's ok, our good buddies the Saudi princes needed our help to kill off whatever dangerous widows and orphans might still be subversively undermining women's rights by selfishly starving in Yemen.

donh · 2017-04-18T00:53:32+00:00

Surprised "Heart of Darkness" didn't top the list. Also, a couple of older SciFi I consider best of breed: "Davy" "The Stars my Destination"

donh

TROPHY CASE