badchad

Check the "Science" section on cnn.com it's updated daily and is very easy to read. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/10/12/space.mexico.telescope.reut/index.html

I agree with gilded, although I'm no psychiatrist, if you look at the formal, clinical criteria for a diagnosis, a diagnosis of schizo depends on an exclusion of other facts. Of course the diagnosis could be wrong, as it is based on a subjective interpretation of the diagnostic criteria. (e.g. "disorganized speech" is subject to interpretation). Also it is EXTREMELY rare to be diagnosed with schizo at age 9. Usually it shows up around the 20's. Sounds like you need a second opinion.

One man probably won't affect the legislation on stem cell research... he's not superman ya know.......

LOL, actually, I worked at a lab completely unrelated to my major. I worked in a turf grass lab (entomology), and now I study pharmacology/toxicology. However in a basic sense "science is science". I still learned basic things such as: how to plan an experiment, (with adequate controls, sample size etc.), and how to interpret results (statistics). This gave me a larger advantage versus other students who had little experience when applying to graduate and undergraduate schools.

Well, like Lucid said, there may not be any psychiatrists out there. I have a good background in cognitive disorders though, so I'll offer what I can. This is the information for the diagnosis of schizophrenia. This is from the DSM-IV-TR (diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, text revised). It is the authority on mental disorders and provides a specific way to diagnose mental disorders. The official diagnosis of schizo. includes the following: A. Characteristic symptoms: Two (or more) of the following, each present for a significant portion of time during a 1-month period: (1) delusions (2) hallucinations (more often auditory then visual) (3) disorganized speech (e.g., frequent derailment or incoherence)* (4) grossly disorganized or catatonic behavior (5) negative symptoms, (e.g., affective flattening, alogia, or avolition)* B. Social/occupational dysfunction C. Duration (symptoms for 6 months, including criteria A for 1 month) D. Schizoaffective and Mood Disorder exclusions. E. Substance/general medication exclusion. F. Relationship to a pervasive Developmental disorder has been excluded. Thus I can tell you with confidence two additional things about your post. 1. Look at criteria "D". In general a diagnosis of schizo is made after a mood disorder has been ruled out. Your listing of her being bipolar is worth looking in to. 2. Schizo usually appears later in life. 19 is an early age for the disease to appear (although not outrageously early). Drugs are becoming better and better, An atypical antipsychotic drug would usually be prescribed for symptom management. Lucid is right abotu lithium for bipolar disorder, however in general it is used as "maintenance therapy" in between manic and depressive cycles. Antidepressants are used during the depressive phase. Interactions between the two drugs most certainly occur, so it's up to a physician to decide what to prescribe. Your last post said "I'm hoping to see a psychiatrist about this" is an understatement. To get an official diagnosis someone had to make it. Either a "regular Dr." or pyschiatrist. Is that what happened, or did she just claim she had these disorders? It sounds funny noting that diagnoses of bipolar and schizo. generally exclude one another and the fact that she would be a rare case to have schizo so early. Something doesn't add up.

definetly right on the size = volume not quality. I have a pair of the bose double cubes and they sound beautiful (no bass though). I also have a 15 inch cerwin vega subwoofer. While it has shaken the wiring of the lights in my house loose so they don't work anymore, the next one I buy will most likely be a 10 inch, slightly higher quality subwoofer.....

I think I mentioned it somewhere else on this board before. IMO if you're spending that much money on sound you should invest in a nice stand alone receiver and a surround sound package. This way, you can play your music, but also have a hometheatre. Also, you can build a hometheatre piece-by-piece so you can slowly invest and build a nice system from the ground up. For instance, I spent about 3 grand on my home theatre, but I did it over a period of like 3 and a half years. Now I have a kick ass time watching DVD's and can flip the system over to computer if I want to. Just curious, how big are those speakers in that pic?

Yeah Molecular man. If you want science and genetics program, IMO nothing will look better then work experience (assuming you take care of the grades and stuff first). Getting your name on a publication (peer reviewed journal) would be icing on the cake. Are there any labs in your area? See if you can get a summer job working at one. Talk to your dad, maybe he can hook you up. I started working in a science lab at 16, and when I applied to both graduate school and my undergraduate college it looked really nice, especially the recommendation my boss wrote me.

Yeah, I'd also look at your anitbody. Perhaps it is lacky in specificity or something. Check some recent publications and see what kinds of antibodies other laboratories are using. Also, there are some biotech companies who would help you if you call and explaint he problem. Good luck!

If you're going to buy that shit from indoroids, lemme know. I have some magic fairy dust that I'll sell to you for half the price!. Gauranteed results.

Theres also a chicken pox vaccine as well. No need for parties.

This is an interesting question to me Glider, as I've been looking at a lot of clinical trials in preparation for a lecture on antipsychotic drugs. I do agree that a 3 drug design (placebo VS. drug VS. New drug) is scientifically sound, and preferred. However, after the initial efficacy of a drug has been demonstrated doing a 2 drug design (New drug VS. placebo); a 3 drug design is not as cost effective as a two drug design. For instance, in a two drug design you can determine whether the new drug is better then the old drug. Why would this need a placebo "control"? both groups receive a drug, so both would be subject to the same amount of "placebo effect". The same holds true for unexpected experimental confounds, they should be equal amongst the two treatments. Thus, any differences that arise would be due to the drug itself. In addition, you run into ethical problems that can occur from not treating a patient (those receiving "placebo"). I'm just curious as to people's input. I've listed a few two-drug designs if you're interested. Am J Psychiatry. 2004 Jun;161(6):985-95. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15169686 J Clin Psychiatry. 2004 May;65(5):696-701. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15163258 Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2004 Mar;19(2):63-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15076013 Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 1997 May;7(2):125-37. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9169300 Am J Psychiatry. 1997 Apr;154(4):457-65. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9090331 Ann Clin Psychiatry. 1993 Sep;5(3):199-207. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8281243 These are just a few two drug designs. IMO it seems that a medline search yields MORE two drug designs then three drug designs. These are clinical trials, which are rigorously planned and well-thought out (generally speaking). In other words, it seems as though a two drug design is well accepted when comparing the effects of two drugs and ti wouldn't be difficult to publish a two drug design.

Well, in certain instances you don't need a placebo control. Generally this occurs when there is already a known drug which is effective at treating a disorder. An example would be the evaluation of antipsychotic drugs. The early drugs used to treat psychosis and schizophrenia were known as "atypical" antipsychotics. Since these drugs were efficacious in resolving symptoms newer drugs are compared against this standard. For instance, we could spend a lot of time and money doing a double blind study of a "new drug" VS. placebo. However, if the "new drug" isn't better then the old drug, we've wasted our time. So, if you have a "new drug", you could in fact compare it only with an older standard drug, and not use a placebo. This would be because both groups receive a drug ("new drug" and old drug), thus, both would have an equal amount of placebo effect. However, a double blind without a placebo would only occur when there is already a standard drug with which to compare it too.

You don't necessarily need a "placebo". You need to perform a "double blind" study. In this case, neither the person observing the students and collecting the data, nor the children themselves know what drug they've been given. This will eliminate bias. Then simply measure the response of the children to the two drugs (e.g. non-drug or placebo VS drug). If you have a large enough number of children, you could also perform the test using three drugs or conditions, where you could split the hyper kids into three different groups: 1. Those receiving placebo, 2. Those receiving a drug which is already known to reduce hyperactivity, and 3. The "new" drug. The latter situation is probably a bit more realistic. This is because there are already drugs used to treat hyperactivity. Since there are already drugs available, we only care whether a new drug is better then whats currently available.

I use spybot and think it works quite well. I've never even heard of "teatime", I'm assuming it's another ad-remove program? Clean install windows 4 times a month? Sounds like a lot to me. I usually format my hard drive and re-install everything once a week. Probably takes me about 3 days to back up everything and get everything reinstalled. You could do it once and try and make use of system restore maybe?!?!

lol, I may be getting confused too.... I started my part of the discussion (which in all honesty had little to do with the original question of why higher magnification leads to dimmer light) in response to firedragon's quote, which I've attempted to edit for clarity. Essentially, I went off on a slight derail of how the resolution of a microscope is related to the wavelenght of light that is used to view the specimen. I used the example of an electron microscope to illustrate my point which in a nutshell is that electron microscope's have a greater resolution than light microscope, because the wavelength or "size" of a stream of electrons is smaller than that of light. The smaller "size" of the "electron stream" which is used in electron microscopy would be better able to fit between two closely spaced specimens. Thus, resolving that there are two specimens, instead of one.

Yeah, maybe I was unclear. I agree on the reason for images becoming dimmer as magnification increases. The "fit through" remark was made in response to firedragon, and the resolution of light VS. electron microscopes.

I think he meant to say that because of lights wavelength, you can only achieve a finite resolution with a light microscope. Specifically, I think it has to do with the amplitude of light. I vaguely remember learning it in the following way: imagine two particles sitting very close to one another; particles one and two: (1)(2). if the wave of light cannot "fit" between the two particles, you won't be able to tell there is two (no matter what magnification you use). This is why electron microscopes are superior. The wavelength of light is smaller, and can "fit between" a small space, thus increasing the resolving power. This is also why you need to use oil immersion at higher power, the oil changes the properties of the wavelength of light. Sound about right?

I took the regular GRE's. My impression is that they're not exactly "hard", but if you plan on doing extremely well (significantly above the mean) it will be quite difficult. The GRE was created for students whom plan on attending a graduate school (obviously). Thus, every single person that takes them usually has a B.S. (4 year college degree). Also, usually, the people that apply to graduate school are "smarter then average". So, in terms of selection, the test is designed for those who do quite well academically, and have already done 4 years of study. So in response to some of the people on this board who constantly claim that: "I'm so smart and never got below 90% on any exam". The Majority of people taking the GRE can make that claim. So in terms of how you place, you're taking an exam and competing against people who have much higher then average academic skills. So if you hit the mean on the GRE, you can classify yourself as: "an average really smart person". You can probably find all sorts of practice questions on the net. Good luck!

Try curing AIDS....

^^^^ Albert hoffman discovered LSD that way.

Agreed, CD-ROMS are still quite functional. It will be a little while until DVD disks are absolutely needed. My only point though, is that in searching Dell's website, only the cheapest comp. ($499) contains a CD-ROM. All the others have DVD.

I thought I read somewhere that Bill Gates predicted the DVD to be obsolete in 10 years. Sounds reasonable to me. IMO I consider the "modern" age of computers began in 1995 with win. 95. Now it's 2004 and the CD-ROM and floppy are about done.

Squeeze an orange or a lemon. My guess is that whats left over (the rine, seeds, skin, etc) has a higher protein content, I could be wrong though.

Just a guess: Maybe they soak them, which would make them more pliable. When they dry out they get mroe rigid. Kind of like a sponge?