Just got back from a funeral...

gth829c · 21 days

Correct.

You body's nerves may still fire, but they are not interpreted by the brain at this point.

gth829c · 21 days

I actually could not discern a reason why. Please explain.

gth829c · 21 days

Your brain will stay alive for up 14 minutes after death. At which point it has been shown that many people enter a state similar to that of lucid dreaming. In this state you create a new type of consciousness within your own mind. I've heard it theorized that this is a defense mechanism to prevent pain or suffering during death, though I am not certain about that. It has been a while since I have read any studies on this matter

JayAche · 23 days

Your body can absorb almost an infinite amount of B¹²

JayAche · 23 days

The niacin actually causes the flushing.

JayAche · 23 days

Yes, but the effects of the B12 take time to affect you system. If you look on the back of 5 hour energy drinks they contain roughly 8333% of the recommended b12 daily intake (or about 500mcg). Compared to a regular energy drink which contains only about 100%. While b12 does not give you energy per say, it is just an essential enzyme in creating energy. For example if you do not eat for an entire 24 hour period and try to take a 5 hour you will not receive much energy if any from the b12 (unless you have a B12 deficiency), but assuming a normal (or close to) dietary range, then the B12 will aid in the creation of more energy than your body would naturally. The B12 also works to give cognitive energy, i.e. non-physical energy. This allows you to focus and remain unclouded in cognitive functions. Still it depends on your dietary practice. Therefore if you want to get the full effects of the 5-hour energy, you should eat some bread or other high carbohydrate food source first, so you body has energy to work with.

5 hours work in roughly 3 stages. The taste gives you a quick jolt ( lasting 10-30 minutes), then the caffeine kicks in ( from 30 minutes to 1 hour), while the niacin and B12 take effect (the remainder of the "5 hours").

TL;DR: Yes, B12 gives you energy.

doesFreeWillyExist · 1 month

One I would add to this list: Waking Life

Brain_Doc82 · 1 month

There are only two types of questions, scientific, which can be provided, explained, or supported factually and empirically, and philosophical, which can not be definitively proven or supported beyond the concept of rationalization.

As far as I can tell anything in the first category should be open for questioning.

zu1tje5 · 1 month

Ah I just read that the other day. The comic does indeed layout the basics of science development (though I can say the Biology to Psychology thing is a VERY generalized statement, and is not entirely true. It's development is a little most interesting).

But yes if you really want to look into the development of most sciences start with mainly philosophers, they were typically the ones who created some of the core functions and theories of mathematics and physics.

Brain_Doc82 · 1 month

Disclaimers do not negate blatant negligence, true. But legally speaking, yes they do hold up in court as long as they are made available, and the message is presented in a clear and concise manner that is easy to read and understand.

It is unethical to conclusively diagnose and/or treat in such a manner, yes. It is not unethical to objective state relative facts in accordance with provided information. In my reply to Brain_Doc82 I explain this point

Brain_Doc82 · 1 month

No question is ever wrong, and while that is an extreme case I see a better opportunity there. I think you will be hard pressed to find a professional or someone with objective knowledge of the subject who would willingly layout the steps for such an operation. But therein lies the opportunity to educate on why it is a terrible idea and/or practice.

Consider another extreme. If someone ask how to perform open heart surgery on themselves, I doubt there is a single person who would seriously explain. But there is an opportunity to explain why that would be a terrible idea, and why it should be done by a professional in a professional setting.

We should not exclude questions because they are answered with answers we don't like. Rather we should explain why we don't want to answer. We should use questions such as the one you presented as an opportunity to explain things just as objectively as we explain everything else.

zu1tje5 · 1 month

It depends on which science you are wanting to know the history of. A lot of sciences evolved from a previous science, but if you mean to determine original core science's history, there are many different origins. I have a background in psychology, and can tell you it's history, if you'd like. Otherwise you should probably state which science your interested in the history of.

If you mean to determine the origin of science as a whole (such as what started it all) that can be a long winded history lesson.

In general though, many sciences started out with or by philosophers.

Brain_Doc82 · 1 month

I understand this is a concern, that is why I mentioned including a discretionary point. I do not advocate the idea of people posting every tiny symptom in hopes for a conclusive diagnosis, because you are right in the regard that most internet diagnosis is flat out wrong or inconclusive. Rather I feel that eliminating all questions that may be perceived as medical advice is a step in the opposite extreme. But some medical questions tend to come more from personal experience, rather than passive observation. This may be my psychology background providing a slight bias, but I think that a better solution would be to acknowledge questions that may be diagnostic in nature as chances to highlight and provide information pertaining to such, with the idea that nothing is conclusive, and that should any problems be relevant to the health of the poster, professional help should be sought immediately.

I think my really issue is that I do not believe any question should be excluded from a science based forum, no matter how arbitrary.

Brain_Doc82 · 1 month

Maybe instead of saying not to give/ask for advice, which will most likely never change, and vastly reduces questions pertaining to Medical fields, it should be stated to refrain from asking/giving advice, but should advice be requested/given to use at sole discretion, as it is not a viable and/or credible diagnosis of any/all conditions one may be inquiring about. A simple two line legal disclaimer could easily negate any possible consequences of this problem, but still allow people to get decent information as to particular ailments (and encouraged to seek professional counsel).

TL;DR - Instead of saying no don't do it, add a legal disclaimer. They are very easy to write.

giftedgothic · 1 month

'90 children

Positronix · 3 months

By controlled random I mean that they will come an stage at a set location, and will not go beyond certain areas, but so long as they are in that area they will move in a random fashion

Tallon · 3 months

Yes, narcissist have a secure sense of self. They may hide past traumas or their flaws. But in a social context, they usually have a stronger sense of self. Now in a clinical or private setting they may not. But this is not in regards to that.

WillyPete · 3 months

That's normal. If you do a shoot with high-profile subjects. That way you won't print "negative" images of them, or images they don't approve. Like I said completely normal.

Lokistarcraft · 3 months

The ads should be decelerations of truth and action. Meaning that if they do not take all available action to accomplish what they say, they are no longer allowed to run for office.

ThePieOfSauron · 3 months

Only functions that are 100% supportive of a population, without any sort of special interest or majority and minority that do not strongly affect or cripple any private sector industry.

This would include sectors such as the EPA, Military, Education, ect. For the most part each of these would need to be restructured to meet this criteria.

the12ofSpades · 3 months

It's about self-service. You surround yourself with people who do something for you. Whether it is love, sex, insight, challenge, or any other number of traits. The people you surround yourself with provide you a service (whether knowing or unknowing) and you do the same.

Take in account the two most extreme secure personalities: Narcissistic and Dependent.

A narcissist would prefer to surround themselves with primarily dependent people, because they are easier to control and provide the praise the narcissist craves. At the same time though, they will keep the company of a few other narcissist, to keep them challenged and reassure them about their choices.

A dependent tends to crave less diversity in people, rather they tend to want to surround themselves by a few narcissist so that they may always remain near one to slate there needs. They will keep the company of primarily dependents outside of these narcissist, so that they may justify their own dependency.

Tallon · 3 months

Offense is not so much based on the power over the individual, but rather that of challenging the power of the individual. By power I refer to the idea of self. To be offended you have to take an attack to your sense of self, it does not mean that you are less or more powerful for offending or being offended. In the same regard, if you take no offense on any level then your sense of self is absolutely secure (i.e. a Narcissist), but if you take offense at any transgression you sense of self is virtually void (i.e. a Dependent).

Positronix · 3 months

Are you want to have them move in a controlled, controlled random, or absolutely random method? Are you wanting the movie clips they generate to be your projectiles?

NoOneFamous

TROPHY CASE

NoOneFamous

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login