I don't doubt that. I'm just saying that drug therapy is more effective when combined with another therapy, such as CBT. Combined drug and non-drug therapies have consistently proven to be more successful than either one alone. In this case, Buddhist philosophy is the non-drug therapy.

I'm not getting "sustainability" from building giant houses for rich people in the middle of formerly pristine wilderness areas.

And what is with the assumption that this is some rich guy's private house? And why are you only picking on one possible example and ignoring the basic premise? RTFA.

Moon: so you don't believe in cognitive behavioral therapy? Only drugs can resolve a persons problem? Seems to fly in the face of about every test and professional opinion I've ever heard.

Moon: Ever taken lithium? Many bipolar sufferers don't like it because of the way it makes them feel. I suspect the Buddhism had a much larger percentage to play.

How the hell Asus wins design awards and Lamborghini puts there name on such a crap range of products is simply beyond me.

More faithful my ass. That would require everyone who had accidentally embedded a colour profile in their image to have take the photo and processed it as faithfully as possible.

I was expecting to see something that had used a real tilt-shift lens (Photoshop doesn't count) and had be slowly adjusted over time achieve some neat effect. This is simply a time-lapsed video with a Photoshop filter. Still, it was interesting. But the title isn't accurate.

hope I wasn't the only one who googled "low rise v-string" after reading the article

I did after reading your comment. Does that count?

Yes, we all love to hear about your tiny origami birds that were even smaller than this, but can you fold one while inside someone's abdominal cavity? I beat none of you have even tried!

Clockwork steampunk stuff only really interests me when the gears are actually part of some working, practical system. I just don't get the appeal, otherwise. Perhaps it's the engineer in me.

Hmmmm... D+ (the + is for trying)

For any living being to have telepathic abilities must be such an enormous advantage that it is indeed *very* hard to believe that it hasn't been exploited by evolution to such a degree that it would be clearly recognizable to even the most untrained observer.

Now, I'm certainly not saying I believe in telepathy, but your argument makes no sense and is based on many assumptions. Otherwise why wouldn't all animals have evolved the best of everything they have?

Is there anything worse than an unscientific scientist?

I'd say he got what he deserved.

#69 posted by Rossifumi:

My point was the people who are thinking about killing themselves are often experiencing severe depression and therefore aren't thinking very well. In fact, their thoughts may be too paralysed to think about anything else. Severe depression is a major psychological/neurological disorder that can completely change a someone's personality and essentially shutdown their normal brain function.

And please, dump your whole superiority thing while you're at it -- people who have been through this may be a lot stronger than you ever will be.

I'm sorry if people you know have killed themselves, but writing them off as cowards show that perhaps you never really understood what they were going through. No body expects you to unless you have experienced it yourself, but it is expected of you to understand when you can't relate to something.

Why?

There is a slight problem, though. If it was real, the piston would rip the wheel off, rather than turn it.

I think everyone needs to cut Rossifumi some slack as it's obvious that he has never been in a position where he has been seriously depressed enough to think about such things.

Rossifumi: Consider yourself lucky and try not to comment so much on things you have no understanding of. You will look like less of a fool to others. What happened was tragic, but comments like yours are simply naive and unhelpful.

As for the whole suicide is selfish debate. Most people are selfish, even many of those that try no to be. If you go down that path, then you can also apply selfishness to those that are left behind.

Wireless cameras like that have been around for ages. So have goggles like that. I'd rather have a normal TV screen so I can still see the real world. What would be news was if you could move your head around and move the camera so you could actually look around. There are people who've made these for the RC would, but I've yet to see a commercial product available (an Apache helicopter has a similar system, but they can be a bit expensive, not to mention bulky). And as someone else mentioned, stereoscopic vision would also make the system more interesting.

That camera is definitely on my wish list. It's about time someone brought high speed video to the masses.

"It may very well be that there are electro-sensitive people, but what are the odds that there are is an organized group of them in Santa Fe, NM?"

I guess that depends on exactly what your definition of "vast majority" is and the actual statistics of Santa Fe, NM.

Perhaps someone needs to tell the University of Washington Medical Center committee that after a liver transplant, he'll be taking many drugs with much more serious side effects and dependency issues than cannabis: Extremely potent synthetic opiates, corticosteroids and other immunosuppressants, etc.

And of course, problematic drug users belong in rehab, not prison.

Perhaps they were in the landfill for a very good reason.

"A child surviving without sleep for three years is every bit as impossible as the same child surviving without water for three months. It just can't happen... sorry."

OK, now I agree that it's unlikely, but to say it's impossible is pretty stupid. Since we are trying to be scientific here, you don't know it's not impossible, so you shouldn't use that word. Call it extremely unlikely, and leave it at that. Otherwise, you are a discredit to your supposed scientific values.

Given that the arc of the porthole matches the pivot point of the dog's head, I hope it comes with some sort of automatic snot cleaning device. At least if our dog and the car window was anything to go by. Still, very cute. What they really need is some sort of high-tech material that will let smell through, but keep the mad barking in.

My take on this is that it's like suggesting that if we cut down on sleep, we'd get more work done. We still need sleep and are generally better for it (that's certainly what the science side of things suggests). Some of us like our TV time (although, I only buy, rent, or download -- TV adds are too disruptive). It allows me to reflect on various things in life, often unrelated to what's happening on TV. That's how I work.

You can calculate all sorts of what-if scenarios like this article seems to have tried to do, but they always ignore the complexity that is the real world.

Perhaps Shirky could use some awareness meditation time?

But advocating books as an energy saver is almost like advocating insulated walls with holes in them. I'd imagine you need to pack them pretty tight for it to work. Unless this guy has some science to back up what he is saying, I'd say it's mainly BS.

@10: Dumping your poorly wrapped, sloppy food onto a high-voltage motor control unit. Bring insulated gloves and a fire extinguisher just in case.

@5: If you're talking about caffeine, then perhaps it's one of the cheaper and safer ones, but hardly the "best". For starters, people react to drugs differently. For me, caffeine just makes me jittery -- perhaps a bit more alert.

How about a link that works?

@4 and 8

Yeah, in fact, you could make it a safety feature! It looks like you're much more likely to survive jamming the brakes on and endoing forward in this compared to a normal bike. Might be a bit disorientating, though. :D

*The gov't. probably finds it easier to study "alternative" methods because they are hip, and maybe less expensive than traditional, y'know, THERAPY - the "duh" treatment.

You're saying that meditation isn't a form of therapy? Some people might argue that it's the most basic, fundamental form of therapy there is. Of course, it's also one of the hardest.

For Tibetans to stand up for the Dalai Lama is like Italians standing
up for Pope Pius IX. He's too busy making book deals and sipping tea
with starry-eyed Hollywood celebrities to have anything meaningful to
say about the plight of "his people."

What makes you say that? He has had much to say on the subject. Are you saying he's not doing enough? What should he be doing exactly?

Sorry, I missed a few of your posts, which lead to some confusion.

When anybody, especially a religious leader, says that gayness is sinful, he's inciting hatred and violence, whatever he thinks or however he qualifies it. And if you think that Buddhists don't get violent, you haven't been reading the news lately.

But the Dalai Lama didn't say that the gayness is sinful. If you don't understand the difference, then perhaps you need to study the precept of perfect speech a bit more. It may be a subtle difference between what he said, and what you think he means by what he said, but that subtle difference can be important.

I think the difference is intent. The Dalai Lama has never intended to be homophobic, as far as I can see. Your apparent illusion that he is seems to steam from his views on all sex, not gay sex. It naturally effects gay sex because of biological differences. If you think that is discrimination, then perhaps you should take that up with whoever you think designed the female and male anatomy. Because it makes about as much sense to call him homophobic as it does to call him sexist because only women can have children. Do you see what I mean?

Perhaps the Dalai Lama could have been clearer on exactly what he meant to avoid this confusion, but he isn't perfect. And as a Buddhist, you should know better than to criticize Buddhist leaders. Not because Buddhist leaders are infaluble (because they aren't), but because you also aren't perfect, either. And using Buddhist principals, it makes sense that chances are, a Buddhist leader is a better Buddhist than a layman. Unless you don't actually consider yourself a Buddhist, in which case, you shouldn't be so quick to criticize belief systems that you don't understand.

People can believe whatever they want, but when someone opens his pie hole and says something that I find offensive, particularly in an interview, and particularly when millions look to him for leadership, then I reserve the right to say something about it. Are you saying that he gets to speak his mind and I don't? Because that's what it sounds like.

If you had to make sure that you never offended anyone, then you'd need to keep your mouth shut forever, unless you were enlightened. You can say whatever you want, but that doesn't mean you are saying much of value.

Before, I didn't realize that you were a Buddhist, but now that it seems you are, then you really should read his books, if only to see where you think he went wrong. Because in my experience, Buddhists who criticize other Buddhists often have much to learn about life.

I'm sorry that you feel persecuted and discriminated against by society -- I haven't had that experience in the way you have. But I also think that your anger and frustration have blinded you from seeing things the way they really are. There is a reason anger is generally considered to be a bad thing in Buddhism.

I'm going to refrain from posting anymore on this topic, as I get into arguments too easily on the web and need to practice drawing the line to stop, but I wish you the best of luck.

ANY value system that preaches intolerance or hate against a particular group of people, or a person's natural state of being, is to be abhored.

But Buddhism does no preach intolerance or hate, just the opposite. You are reading too much into what he is saying. You seem to think that he has something against homosexuality. But this is only based on your own preconceived notions about who you think the Dalai Lama is and what his views are. You have no basis to prejudge people like that.

The school of Buddhism that the Dalai Lama follows has strict rules regarding sex that affect heterosexual people just as much as it affects homosexual people. It is also a voluntary choice. You can't force someone to be any type of Buddhist in the first place.

For example, if a person decides that sex is a distraction for them, and decided that they would only have sex if they decided to have children, then how is that discrimination against gay people?

As someone talking about tolerance, you seem very intolerant of intolerance. Perhaps you should practice tolerance more? That way you may actually be patient enough to realise that perhaps you are seeing things wrong.

Being gay is NOT a value system, nor a choice.

But there is nothing against homosexuality in Buddhism. Other people can't help it if you define homosexuality only as the act of sexual intercourse, rather than loving another person.

All your problems here rely on some preconceptions of the Dalai Lama. As someone talking about minorities and discrimination, shouldn't you know better than to assume who someone else is?

All this stuff is over a decade old, and he was clearly waffling about scriptural issues. I wonder what he has to say about it now. I suspect that his position has loosened up, since he seemed to be headed in that direction.

It could very well be that. The Dalai Lama has said that the scriptures aren't perfect and that they need to be changed over time to reflect the changes in society -- or something to that effect.

Perhaps you should try reading one of his books. You might be surprised to see how rational he is despite his very traditional appearance. His books aren't aimed at Buddhists, and they aren't preachy, either. I would never have become a fan otherwise.

When I have equal rights, I'll shut up. Can you get that sorted out this afternoon? kthxbai

Just because some fundamentalist Christians in the USA don't believe in gay rights, that doesn't mean other people of other religions in other places don't. Or do you think that people don't deserve the right to have their own value systems if it conflicts with yours?

It seems to me that you think that if someone isn't pro-gay, they must be anti-gay. Do you think I'm homophobic, too?

@Moon: I think you have been reading too much propaganda. Or perhaps you work for the PRC?

You're an apologist for homophobia...

No I'm not. Please explain why you think that.

How exactly does a belief that sex should not be use for pleasure make someone homophobic? You don't make much sense. Using your logic, heterosexual people are homophobic.

...and, apparently, a telepath.

Are you saying that the Dalai Lama has lied in every one of his books? Have you ever read a single one of them?

oh, start enumerating please. Can you get past four or five? Three of which are bound to be elaborations on the same theme?

Perhaps you should ask someone who is more familiar with such religious practices? I don't follow such strict rules, but I do respect other people's way of life if it does not harm others.

To say that shows that you don't understand the definition of homophobia. Homophobia doesn't require conscious philosophical intent. It is what it is. If the pope says that women are inferior to men, is that not misogyny?

When did the Dalai Lama say that homosexuals were inferior? Of course homophobia doesn't require conscious philosophical intent. But it does require a fear of homosexuality -- that is its definition. Are you saying that deep down, the Dalai Lama despises or fears homosexuals?

The Dalai Lama is a monk, and monks have strict rules. I know conservative views are not as popular as they used to be these days, but to accuse someone of being prejudice against homosexuality simply because they have strict rules regarding sexual conduct is itself prejudice, not to mention simply being insensitive to other people's way of life.

Who are you to judge what works for them? Because I can assure you, the Dalai Lama doesn't judge people in such ways.

He is much better than the Pope say on gay rights but to me homophobia is a sign of deep spiritual flaws.

The thing that many people seem to forget is that in many religions, sex is something that should only be practiced for making babies. Obviously, until two males can have children naturally, homosexuality is not necessarily something that is going to be encouraged in religions that practice restraint in sexual conduct.

To say that it is a sign of a deep spiritual flaw simply shows that you do not understand the issue very well. Perhaps it is conservative, but it is not necessarily homophobic. That is an important difference.

I would hope this last sentence is only in response to the unhealthy obsession for beauty modern society has. Otherwise, I find the sentence utterly inhuman. Why would I want to control and temper my desire for beauty?

So it never develops into an unhealthy obsession, perhaps?

Bloody hell. It doesn't even take a half a brain and a little taste to realise that most tagging is simply immature vandalism (especially if you are 28 -- time to grow up). Some of it might pass as art, but it's a rare case, and this isn't one of them. Did he think people wouldn't mind because it was a glacier and will be gone in a few years? Did he not think it would be disrespectful? Or perhaps just too arrogant to care?

Please don't tag our glaciers. They already have enough to deal with.