1veedo

It might be able to. According to google it can (always google before posting). I just assumed no cause the only liveCD for Windows I can name is "Bart" which has only "recently" (not sure how recent but at least sense the last time I was at their website) actually released customizable liveCD support. There used to just be the bart operating system and a couple others which were static with what they had; support software and the like. Booting a USB is a little different from a CD. You have to set up a boot sector and do a couple other things (been a while sense I've done this). Just follow the instructions online.

Microsoft's latest open source moves are more talk than anything else. They have two minor programs under the CPL, and deals with Novell (but just that, deals) and that's about it but the media went crazy about the idea. Meanwhile Microsoft is trying to sue Ubuntu and other open-source companies (ahem whatever you call Ubuntu) for copy-write infringement which makes no sense to me. Millions of people from around the world edit open source software. Microsoft wont even name what the infringements are. The only real reason Novell and a couple other distros have deals with microsoft is because of this issue (Novell actually has a partnership which is a little different but Linspire and a couple others have just sold out to keep running). If they sign some pretty shifty legal paperwork Microsoft is excusing them. Microsoft is clearly coercing Linux distros to "sign up with them" so Microsoft can get in on the Linux business, that it is currently losing market share to, which is a great example of them "taking advantage of its power to constantly hold a monopoly" even today. Microsoft is still using its same old tactics. If you cant see this then you're practically blind. We can't blame Microsoft though; it's just doing what any good business does. That's like where people hate on Wall Mart for how bad they treat their employees but Wall Mart isn't the only one; they're just doing what any other business would (eg Target), get the most out of their employees for the lowest they can pay them. There's nothing inherently wrong with this.

SkepticLance I think the biggest problem here is a lack of understanding that the reason temperatures are so high today is because of human activities. Solar irradiance represents natural influences in the climate. The CO2 release between 1900 and 1950 is responsible for about half, or 50%, of the total increase in temperatures during this period. They are also responsible for the fact that temperatures din't fall very dramatically between the 1940s and 70s because of sulfate aerosols and they are also responsible for almost all of the dramatic increase in temperature after the 70s. If it weren't for human greenhouse emissions current temperatures would be much lower than they are today and we're not talking about just the temperature rise from the 70s on; we're talking about the total effect over the entire 20th century (including half of the rise between 1900 and 1950 where you're claiming the "driver" is solar influences). CO2 increased all along this period as well. The sun is not the only culprit in this picture. If it were the sun alone temperatures would be at about -.2C on this graph, having only risen about .1C from 1860 to 1950 total and very little afterwards.

FYI USB [2.0] is faster, and often times much faster (300%), than a harddrive. You wont be able to get winXP booting from a USB but what you can do is boot Ubuntu and run qemu on a winXP image (eg use dd). Qemu is fairly slow though so don't expect anything amazing out of Windows. It's kind of neat to show people though.

Seconded. Google works a lot with open source eg it's summer of fun thing. Google earth even runs natively on Linux so there's no complaining there (lol even though it was me who figured out how to get the windows google Earth running in Wine).

The contributions between anthropogenic factors and solar irradiance are about equal. There are always uncertainties here but when we're talking 60% vs 40% we're talking about two factors that are about even in magnitude. Your argument has no scientific basis. I clearly have a reference to support my point, which really isn't an argument or a position but more of a statement of fact. The solar influence was much more significant during this period, I'll give you that, but it wasn't the "primary driver." On the same token neither really were human factors.

Eg people like SkepticLance whom think they're smarter than thousands of scientists around the planet.

lol a bit harsh there don't you think swansont? Maybe just to expand on what he said, scientists do have fairly good predictions for how global warming will impact climate change in the future. Here's a link to the Summery for Policy Makers "edition" of Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipcc.ch%2FSPM2feb07.pdf&ei=6iZ4RpKTK5zgggTrj7ivCA&usg=AFQjCNHGFrsbqtTFpoA9PTw6PXidmuAu3Q&sig2=Jc1bTOwzm4lP3SfVpCCiMg It's rather short and easy to follow. As a future scientist I'm sure you'll enjoy it

I remember reading Hawkings book A Universe in a Nutshell and he spent an entire chapter talking about lost data. According to the book we can in fact get data back from black holes so determinism is left in tact (eg if we got the state of every atom in the universe we could predict the future exactly, or something like that.) This may or may not be true, it's been a while sense I read all this. But on the other hand we don't necessarily need determinism in order for science to "explain everything." Being able to explain everything just means there's a model that can explain every known natural phenomenon from the big bang to evolution to sociology. Of course as bascule posted above (good book btw) we may be running into some brick walls in physics. I sill don't think geoguy is exactly following the topic at hand though (just bolded so you'll see it and be able to respond geoguy , nothing personal). By being able to "explain everything" we're talking about theories here, not absolute knowledge. Eg why do animals evolve? Because of natural selection. Why do stars burn? Because of nuclear fusion. Etc. There are just a couple levels of "explaining" here. We have general concepts that can in theory explain anything (ie if you have a question about something you can "run to science" and get an answer), we have reductionism which imo is utter nonsense, and then we have the sort of deterministic level where you can feed in the state of the universe and accurately predict the past and future. By science we just mean the cumulative body of knowledge that is science, not necessarily one guy being able to read, understand, and memorize every fact that science knows -- it's impossible to know everything (I would assume at least).

Salt water does, however, evaporate Jadey12. It's a graph that' date=' contrary to what you're saying, shows that cfcs have been [i']decreasing[/i]. Of course you have no citation to support your claim simply because your claim is incorrect. On the other hand there is contrary evidence that proves CFCs are decreasing. This is a red herring though I'm short on what exactly it is that you're trying to prove here. I'll take your word for it that ozone levels have been less than the north for longer then 1980 but I'm not sure why this is important.

The story cant be explained by any single factor. Rising population in just California for example contributes some, classification can explain some of it, etc, but the question "do more people have autism or are more people just being diagnosed with it" is a rather misinformed question. More people do have autism and whether, as the leading theory suggests, genetics are causing this or something else is we don't know.

I believe you are mistaken. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion Btw, Anecdotes are not science, not now not ever. Learn this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ozone_cfc_trends.png

Yes those damned Amsterdam psychologists how could of I forgotten about them? Best psychologists anywhere on the planet is what I hear, but it could be just a rumor. British psychologists also have documentation that marijuana use causes schizophrenia. "Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people" published in 2004 in the British Medical Journal. There's just no getting around this I dont guess.

To which I would refer you to post #18 of this thread posted by 1veedo. Apparently autism rates are rising and this is not because of better diagnosis -- so there's no need for you to be rejoicing. Specifically, according to the post, (bold emphasis added)

Well here I think is the main flaw in reasoning. Marijuana does more then just increase dopamine levels. All drugs do more then just this, and most of the time these side-effects are mostly negative. Marijuana of course has several noticeable beneficial side-effects, including the ability to treat cancer as feedochain posted above (which is the same reason it cures headaches; it's antiinflamatory). I think it's irnoic that I ran across this study but I was doing research in 5htp supplementation and ran across this article, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12079687 , "Delta(9)-Tetrahydrocannabinol (6 mg/kg, i.p.), which impairs spatial memory, significantly increased the 5-HT content in the ventral hippocampus." (ie THC increases serotonin levels) So as you can see there's a lot more to it then just dopamine. Merinol (dronabinol/THC) specifically increase serotonin levels according to a second study, "Tolerability of dronabinol alone, ondansetron alone and the combination of dronabinol plus ondansetron in delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This study compared the tolerability of dronabinol versus ondansetron in subjects with delayed CINV. Subjects received moderately to highly emetogenic chemotherapy and were treated with dexamethasone/ondansetron prior to chemo-therapy. Subjects who were randomized to receive dronabinol, ondansetron, or dronabinol plus ondansetron also received dronabinol pre- and post chemotherapy. Researchers concluded that dronabinol was well tolerated, with a low rate of central nervous system related adverse events, which may make it a suitable alternative to serotonin antagonist therapy for delayed CINV (Jhangiani et al., 2005). Link to the ASCO abstract: http://www.asco.org/ac/1,1003,_12-002636-00_18-0034-00_19-0031146,00.asp"* Which had more then just one source claiming marijuana can help treat depression. It could cure depression under the assumption that certain chemicals are extracted and prescribed. It could be used as a treatment in the medical community is what I'm talking about, not that if you're depressed you could buy some weed right now and it'd cure the depression for you. Again, we must segregate between chemical properties of a drug and other effects typical of drug use. Marijuana most definitely increases your risk of depression. It also, however, contains anti-depressant properties on a chemical level. The distinction is important.

I was just alluding back to earlier posts because two of the links you posted ironically supported my point about typical sideeffects from drug use associated with dopamine receptor activity. My entire post wasn't meant to be a response only to you. Well yes had you understood more clearly my posts from earlier maybe you wouldn't have missunderstood what I was saying. I clearly bolded this point a couple times, actually. Marijuana appears to contain anti-depressant properties on a chemical level. Drug use however increase depression so it's not like smoking marijuana, in most people, will cure depression. They did surveys and the studies clearly point out that firsthand accounts aren't the best way to be making conclusions. "Using marijuana to treat mood disorders can be very tricky. Since active mood disorders often warp one's observational skills, reports by patients about marijuana lifting them out of depression are inherently unreliable." There's more to the studies then just the quotes listed. I'm just pointing out that it's not "one crazy guy" making this claim. There's actually a lot of evidence that cannabis (read: not necessarily marijuana) can be tolerated better then conventional medicine. There are other compounds besides THC that attach to the CB1/CB2 receptors. There are also many more compounds in marijuana that do not attach to these receptors (they do other things in the body). delta-9 THC (read again: not delta-8) by itself doesn't cause the user to be high. It actually alters serotonin levels in a way that 1) Makes the user more hungry 2) Treats nausia THC is prescribed as merinol to treat just this 1) aids patients 2) cancer patients. http://www.marinol.com/aboutmarinol/index.html Other chemicals that attach to the same receptors as THC do just the same, eg the same compounds in the supplement "black hole." Meth is really in a category all of its own. It causes much worse and a higher incidence of depression then just about any other drug. Like I was saying earlier it comes to a point that the only way a user is NOT depressed is when they're on the drug (over long-term use). I still don't see why you're trying to disagree with this statement because it's really common knowledge. I wasn't trying to imply that "lack of interest" was an indicator of depression, it's just one of the sideeffects. Btw all of those symptoms are associated with meth. Eg loss of weight and insomnia are caused by a disruption in natural serotonin cycles in the adic's brain (serotonin levels decrease with meth use). Serotonin regulates mood, hunger, sleep, and arousal -- it's in many respects the "clock" that most people live by. In the evening it turns into meletonin which is how it effects sleep cycles. It's precisely the disruption of serotonin levels because of meth use that causes a lot of the negative symptoms associated with meth. "# Loss of interest or pleasure in hobbies and activities that were once enjoyed, including sex" Just an FYI on sex it isn't a lose of interest on sex, it's the complete inability to even have sex, unless of course the user is one meth. http://www.kci.org/meth_info/faq_meth.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine

Well yes, I'm perfectly sure of this -- it falls back to the "media" thing in a way. And contrary to what you're saying there were in fact problems associated with Y2K. One of the more publicized incidents I remember seeing on the news during this time was some guy getting billed over a million dollars or something and a clock reading 19100. We didn't have any apocalyptic errors that weren't resolved but there were errors no doubt.

Three people have commented here that rising autism rates are because we're just "finding" more people with autism, not because more people are actually born with autism. This seems to be more of a myth then anything else. Although we are better at diagnosing people with autism, according to experts, this cannot explain the increasing rates by any significant extent. http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/mindinstitute/newsroom/study_final.pdf "There is no evidence that a loosening in the diagnostic criteria has contributed to increased number of autism clients served by the Regional Centers... Without evidence for an artificial increase in autism cases, we conclude that some, if not all, of the observed increase represents a true increase in cases of autism in California, and the number of cases presenting to the Regional Center system is not an overestimation of the number of children with autism in California." They also say that rise in the state's population can explain only "a small portion." It's not like there's some sort of "epidemic" though, just rising autism rates, and I don't think it's much to worry about.

Well this is more what I was talking about. Meth is very bad for you brain (lol in case you didn't know) -- it really ****s you up. Not necessarily the meth itself but all of the other chemicals that come along with it. Most meth adics use a coffee filter when producing the drug but this doesn't remove any chemical substances that are bad for you. Meth over time alters the way your body produces and reacts to dopamine, specifically dopamine doesn't "work" as well as it should. Activities that users once found enjoyable are no longer enjoyable. What's interesting here is that while on meth the user again finds these activities enjoyable. It gets to a point where you have to have meth in order to enjoy anything and NOT be depressed, and this includes even sex. Sex becomes so unpleasurable that after long-term use it's impossible to have sex while not on the drug. No, meth most definitely causes depression, on a chemical level, and I don't think there should be any discrepancy here. Depression is actually one of the main side-effects of meth -- after a while nothing tastes good, nothing feels good -- nothing is enjoyable period unless you're on meth. At this point meth doesn't even cause the user to really be high like before, they just need to have it on a chemical level to function, period, in daily life, and while they're not on meth they become extremely depressed. Meth in other words becomes the "cure" to the negative side-effects that it causes.

Jesus I'm not trying to start something here I was reading your link and found this, which is what I was talking about earlier in post #4. "Research findings for long-term marijuana abuse indicate some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term abuse of other major drugs. For example, cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system5 and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine6. Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse." The specifics about schizophrenia are again found in this study: http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinformation/mentalhealthproblems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx "Regular use of the drug has appeared to double the risk of developing a psychotic episode or long-term schizophrenia." I don't really have any direct research talking about dopamine stimulation from drug use and psychosis and but from what I've read in different sources (eg the two above) this does seem to be the case. Just FYI further down from that quote, "Over the past few years, research has strongly suggested that there is a clear link between early cannabis use and later mental health problems in those with a genetic vulnerability - and that there is a particular issue with the use of cannabis by adolescents." -- this is exactly what I was talking about above in my Cécile Henquet et al study "Prospective cohort study of cannabis use, predisposition for psychosis, and psychotic symptoms in young people" (British Medical Journal). This does not deal with depression, though, only the schizo-type side-effects from smoking marijuana. Again this is because of the social effects of drug use, not the chemical effects of marijuana. Saying "their findings contradict your source" because "drugs can be detrimental to both physical and mental health" is a straw man. It can cause psychosis (*cough* be bad for mental health) on a chemical level, be bad for your body physically (eg smoking), and cause depression on a "social" level, but it does not cause depression on a chemical level. We must segregate between chemical properties of a drug and other effects typical of drug use. This is an argument from ignorance. Just because your article doesn't claim anti-depressant properties does not mean that they don't exist. One the contrary I clearly provided a source claiming that they do. This is all ad-hominem. There are actually multiple other journal articles that make the same claims anyway. http://www.medicalmarijuanaprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5-D-Subs-7.db&command=viewone&op=t&id=11&rnd=280.58184875715443 If you read down the list you'll find a motif: the pro "marijuana does cause depression" is from the social effects of drug use and the con focuses more on the chemical effects of cannabis. I'm not claiming that if you smoke marijuana you will treat depression. On the contrary I have clearly posted above that the opposite is actually the case. There is however substantial evidence that marijuana contains anti-depressant properties.

There is evidence that marijuana may have antidepressant properties on a chemical level. This is what I was talking about. The depressive effects of marijuana are on a more social level while chemically it may in fact treat depression. "A surprising number of people so afflicted [with bi-polar disorder] have independently made the discovery that cannabis has improved their conditions, whether the mania or depression. It may also reduce side effects of other drugs used in its treatment, such as Lithium, Carbamazepine (Tegretol) or Valproate (Depakote). No doubt, cannabis is affecting the balance of neurotransmitters that are at the basis for this disorder. Endocannabinoids seem to be intimately involved in emotional regulation mechanisms in the limbic system. Because THC and other chemicals in cannabis mimic our own internal biochemistry, they may help replace what is missing." (Ethan Russo Cannabis Health 2002 Vol1) Meth on the other hand chemically causes depression on top of even worse social consequences of withdrawal and apathy.

Yeah, that's nice. Global warming isn't predicting disaster by any comparable extent of the above. The media might be, or Al Gore, but not the actual scientists. I love how people use straw men so often on these forums. It is a bad thing but... nuclear winter? I'd take global warming over a nuclear winter any day of the week. This shouldn't be on the list. Again you spend too much time watching TV. Everything predicted by scientist about ozone depletion were coming true, eg holes in the ozone becoming bigger. Scientists were not making the claim that ozone depletion would cause global disaster, just speculation that if the ozone hole got big enough it would cause cancer (eg in New Zealand / Australia and southern South America). Because of the dangers of ozone depletion new regulations are in place and ozone concentration in the atmosphere is now increasing while the ozone hole over Antarctica is now decreasing. We're not seeing any effects simply because we have mitigated ozone depletion. Again, I absolutely love how many straw men pop up around here. Lol media hype here too. Most computers were "fixed" before Y2K so there weren't many problems. A few computer malfunctions here or there and a guy getting a credit card bill over a million dollars. Anyone who knew anything about Y2K knew that the world wasn't going to end. A few religious groups thought Jesus would come back but lets not count all the religious people cause they never know what's up. Jesus might come back to destroy the world in 2012 though, you never know

I happen to have read a lot of peer-review on this subject and the idea that the troposphere isn't behaving as expected is really pretty erroneous. Several threads have had this claim come up so I figured I'd put an end to it once and for all. The Earth as a whole is warming at about .2C/decade but ground temperatures are actually around .18. Recording temperatures isn't all that easy. There's a lot of inherent problems with A/MSU readings and specifically they have a natural tendency to show temperatures that are lower then actual. Just so you guys know what I'm talking about there's an interesting article, "Contribution of stratosphericcooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends" published in Nature in 2004. This isn't original research but the same sort of research got the attention of Cristy et al in their serious of publications "Error estimates of version 5.0 of MSU/AMSU bulk atmospheric temperatures," the update version 5.2 of which is in line with global warming theory. So it's not a matter of turning on a satellite, click and boom we now have temperature readings. This letter attempts to reconcile the problems with Cristy's and other publications before 2004 which indicate tropospheric warming not significantly faster, but actually slower then ground temperatures. Another study has shown tropospheric warming as expected sense 2002, and furthered in the 2005 update. Schabel et al. (2002). "Stable Long-Term Retrieval of Tropospheric Temperature Time Series from the Microwave Sounding Unit" Proceedings of the International Geophysics and Remote Sensing Symposium. [updated in 2005] The other study we need is specifically for ground temperatures: Jones and Moberg. (2003). "Hemispheric and large-scale surface air temperature variations: An extensive revision and an update to 2001." Journal of Climate 16: 206-223. To be in line with global warming theory tropospheric warming should be 1.3 times greater then ground temperatures. Ground temperatures have been rising .187C/decade meaning tropospheric warming should be observed at .2431C/decade. From Schabel et al we happen to know that tropospheric warming is .239C/decade. So here we have expected: .243C/decade and actual: .239C/decade. These numbers are only .004C apart which is well within our error margin (ie it's close enough). So as you can see the troposphere is in fact behaving as it was predicted. This should put an end to the whole tropospheric argument that global warming deniers constantly talk about because here is very direct proof that there's nothing really wrong. If anyone ever posts this mumbo jumbo again I'm just going to happily refer them to this thread because they're obviously getting their information from questionable global warming denier websites and not from the actual science journals. The numbers in this case clearly speak for themselves so there should be no problem understanding this.